1,11  5KAK  Y 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


Deceived 
^Accessions  No~^/3  fi  O    . 


,180 
CA/.ss  No. 

" 


STREET'S  HAND  BOOK 


of  the 


MONROE  DOCTRINE 


4 


ijr6  TANNE.KY, 


'••»       / 


is 


-\ 


i    i  ij   M  hi  f  ii 

^,.    -  '  N        I                    '    ,.                                    /  '  -4  |    •    .1 

\Jn   '"' Jfr^flf^f*  fH^ ^r--c  !_---"~l  ' 

iOjiui  I          *«^S?:'^\v/  ^y}' 

^fefo^V    '^*    »      i/ 

h- 


"}  j  ^  ---^ 

[FROM  THK  BOCKY  MOUNTAIN  NEWS.] 
AND  THE 

Venezuelan  Question 


PRICE  TEN   CENTS. 


HAND  BOOK 


OR  THK 


VENEZUELAN  QUESTION 


AND  THB 


MONROE  DOCTRINE 


ARTHUR    I.    STREKT 

AUTHOR    OK    "FINANCIAL    CHRONICLE— PANIC   OK    1893." 

.      :. 


Containing  a  Full  History  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  President  Cleve- 
land's Message,  the  Bear  ftaid  on  American  Securities,  and 
the  Complete  Correspondence  between  Secretary 
Olney  and  Lord  Salisbury. 


DENVER  : 

THE  TIMES  PUBLISHING  Co. 
1895- 


' 


The  Venezuelan  Commission. 


DAVID  J.  BREWER. 

(Justice,  U.  S.  Supreme  Court.) 

RICHARD  H.  ALVEY.  ANDREW  D.  WHITE. 

(Justice  Court  of  Appeals,  District  of  Columbia.)  (Ex- Minister  to  Russia.) 

FREDERICK  R.  &DUDERT.        DANIEL  C.  GILMAN. 

(Lawyer,  New  York.)  (President  Johns  Hopkins  University.) 


0? 

THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE. 


Monroe's  Message  to  the  Congress  of  the  United 

States,  1823. 


In  his  message  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  in  1823,  President 
Monroe  used  the  following  vigorous  language  with  reference  to  the  critical 
international  situation  described  >ti  length  on  the  following  page.  Great 
Britain's  ready  acquiescence  in  the  sentiment  expressed  contributed  materi- 
ally to  the  effect  of  the  message  and  results  were  accomplished  without  any 
formal  action  on  the  part  of  Congress.  This  portion  of  the  message  has  be- 
come known  as  the  Monroe  Doctrine. 


"In  the  wars  of  the  European  powers, 
in  matters  relating  to  themselves,  we 
have  never  taken  any  part,  nor  does  it 
comport  with  our  policy  to  do  so.  /  It  is 
only  when  our  rights  are  invaded  or  seri- 
ously menaced  that  we  resent  injuries  or 
make  preparations  for  our  defence.  AVith 
the  movements  in  this  hemisphere  we  are 
of  necessity  more  immediately  connected, 
and  by  causes  which  must  be  obvious  to 
all  enlightened  and  impartial  observers..- 

} ,  The  political  system  of  the  allied  powers 
is  essentially  different  in  this  respect  from 
that  of  America.  This  difference  pro- 
ceeds from  that  which  exists  in  their  re- 
spective governments.  And  to  the  de- 
fence of  our  own,  which  has  -been 
achieved  by  the  loss  of  so  much  blood 
and  treasure  and  matured  by  the  wisdom  k 
of  our  most  enlightened  citizens,  and 
under  which  we  have  enjoyed  unex- 
ampled'felicity,  this  whole  nation  is  de- 
voted.' We  owe  it.  therefore,  to  candor 
and  to  the  amicable  relations  existing  be- 
iw'-on  the  United  States  and  those  pow- 
ers to  declare  that  we  should  consider 
-any  attempt  on  their  part  to  extend  their 
system  to  any  portion  of  this  hemisphere 
r>»s  dangerous  to  our  peace  and  safety^ 
ffljWlth  the  existing  colonies  of  dependen- 
cies of  any  European  power  we  have  not 
interfered  and  shall  not  interfere/  I'.iit 

'  .   with  the  governments  who  have  declared 
their    independence    and    maintained    it, 


and  whose  independence  we  have,  on 
great  consideration  and  on  just  prin- 
ciples, acknowledged,  we  could  not  view 
any  interposition  for  the  purpose  of  op- 
pressing them,  or  controlling  in  any  other 
manner  their  destiny,  by  any  European 
power,  in  any  other  light  than  as  the 
manifestation -of  an  unfriendly  disposi- 
tion toward  the  United  States.  .  . .  Our 
policy  in  regard  to  Europe,  which  was 
adopted  at  an  early  stage  of  the  wars 
which  have  so  long  agitated  that  quarter 
of  the  globe,  nevertheless  remains  the 
same,  which  is  not  to  interfere  in  the  in- 
ternal concerns  of  any  of  its  powers;  to 
consider  the  government  de  facto  as  the 
legitimate  government  for  us;  to  culti- 
vate friendly  relations  with  it,  and  to 
preserve  those  relations  by  a  frank,  firm, 
and  manly  policy,  meeting  in  all  in- 
stances the  just  claims  of  every  power,- 
submitting  to  injuries  from  none.  But  in 
regard  to  these  continents,  circumstances 
are  eminently  and  conspicuously  differ- 
ent. It  is  impossible  that  the  allied  pow- 
ers should  extend  their  political  system 
to  any  portion  of  either  continent 
without  endangering  our  peace  and  hap- 
piness; nor  can  anyone  believe  that  our 
Southern  brethren,  if  left  to  themselves, 
would  adopt  it  of  their  own  accord.  It  is 
equally  impossible,  therefore,  that  we 
should  behold  such  interposition  in  any 
form  with  indifference." 


THE   VENEZUELAN   QUESTION 


HISTORY  OF  THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE. 


The  Monroe  doctrine  is  historically  of 
British  origin,  and  is  an  outgrowth  of 
what  seemed  an  exigency  in  European 
politics  which  touched  British  interests 
closely.  That  exigency  grew  out  of  an 
alliance  for  mutual  protection  against 
domestic  revolutions  between  Prussia, 
Austria,  France  and  Russia.  These  pow- 
ers had  met  in  congress  in  1820  and  again 
iii  1822,  and  had  agreed  to  support  each 
other  in  suppressing  armed  revolts  in 
each  other's  territory.  Under  this  agree- 
ment a  French  force  was  sent  into  Spain 
to  put  down  a  revolution  against  Ferdin- 
and VII.  At  first  Great  Britain  con- 
sented to  this  agreement  of  the  powers, 
although  not  a  party  to  it,  but  after  Lord 
George  Canning  succeeded  Castlereagh 
as  prime  minister  he  saw  reason  to  fear . 
that  British  interests  might  be  menaced 
by  the  alliance,  and  assumed  an  indiffer- 
ent attitude  toward  it,  which  afterward 
developed  into  an  unfriendly  one. 

About  1810  the  American  colonies  of 
Spain  began  to  revolt  and  declare  them- 
selves free  and  independent,  and  by  the 
time  of  Canning's  accession  to  power 
there  were  several  Spanish-American  re- 
publics whose  independence  had  been 
formally  recognized  by  the  United  States 
and  practically  by  Great  Britain.  Great 
Britain  had  built  up  a  considerable  trade 
with  these  republics,  a  trade  which  was 
impossible  while  they  were  Spanish  col- 
onies, and  therefore  any  indication  of  a 
purpose  on  the  part  of  Spain  to  attempt 
to  re-conquer  these  former  colonies  was 
regarded  as  a  definite  menace  to  British 
interasts.  In  1823  Canning  thought  he 
saw  evidences  that  Spain  intended  to 
claim  the  support  of  the  parties  to  the 
agreement  of  the  year  before  in  an  at- 
tempt n»  ivs lore  its  j »ower  in/Central  and 
South  America  on  the  ground  that  the 
revolts  of  these  colonies  had  been  a  di- 
rect repudiation  of  the  principle  of  the 
legitimacy  and  permanency  of  the  reign- 
ing dynasties,  which  the  allied  powers 
had  bour.d  themselves  to  maintain  by 
armed  interference  in  behalf  of  the 
i  lireatened  monarch. 

CM  lining  called  the  attention  of  our 
minister  to  Great  Britain,  Richard  Rush. 
in  his  suspicions,  and  asked  if  the  United 
Slates  could  be  induced  to  join  in  a  pro- 
test against  this  apparent  purpose  of  the 


allied  powers,  in  an  attempt  to  thwart 
it.  Rush  laid  the  situation,  with  Can- 
ning's suggestion,  before  John  Quiiicy 
Adams,  then  secretary  of  state,  and 
Adams  referred  the  matter  to  the  presi- 
dent and  his  cabinet,  Adams  himself  be- 
ing inclined  to  make  light  of  the  whole 
matter.  Monroe  and  Calhouu  and  other 
members  of  the  cabinet  were,  says  Ad- 
ams, "very  much  in  fear  that  the  holy 
alliance  would  restore  all  South  America 
to  Spain,"  and  Ae  outcome  of  that  tear 
was  the  inessage^etting  forth  the  Monroe 
doctrine.  The  message  was  recognized  in 
Europe  as  an  important  utterance  and 
Spain  tried  to  call  a  conference  of  the 
allied  powers  in  1824  to  consider  the  regu- 
lation of  Spanish-American  interests,  but 
the  refusal  of  Great  Britain  to  join  caused 
the  abandonment  of  the  project.  The 
message  prevented  the  carrying  out  of 
any  purpose  of  interference  in  Spain's 
behalf  in  America,  and  led  to  the  early 
and  formal  recognition  of  the  independ- 
ence of  all  the  Spanish-American  re- 
publics by  England. 

The  first  appearance  of  the  Monroe  doe- 
trine  in  our  politics  was  almost  imme- 
diately after  its  promulgation,  its  bearing 
on  the  part  this  country  should  take  in 
the  Panama  congress  of  Central  and 
South  American  states  in  182G  being 
much  discussed.  The  United  States  was 
invited  to  send  delegates  to  this  congress 
and  did  so,  and  the  controversy  over  the 
wisdom  of  this  action  lasted  for  some 
years  and  was  an  unusually  warm  one. 
but  resulted  in  practically  nothing.  Later. 
when  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  relating 
to  the  Nicaragua  canal  was  negotiated, 
in  1850,  this  doctrine  was  again  to  the 
fore  and  was  exploited  in  congress  and 
the  newspapers,  very  much  in  the  style 
with  which  recent  utterances  have  made 
us  familiar,  but  the  well  remembered 
instance  of  the  French  occupation  of 
Mexico  is  the  only  case  in  which  this 
doctrine  has  been  officially  and  positively 
asserted  by  our  government.  Napoleon 
III.  thought  he  saw  in  our  distress  in 
18t>2  an  opportunity  to  establish  a  mon- 
archy in  Mexico,  and.  with  the  sanc- 
tion of  the  pope,  and  the  approval 
of  Austria  he  sent  a  military  expedition 
to  set  up  a  limited  hereditary  monarchy, 
with  Maximilian  of  Austria  as  its  first 


AND    THE    MONROE    DOCTRINE. 


emperor.  <  Mir  government  protested  sev- 
eral times,  in  spite  of  the  indifference  of 
Seward,  but  without  apparent  effect,  but 
the  end  of  the  war,  with  the  union  re- 
stored and  the  whole  country  :i roused, 
pin  ;i  different  face  on  the  matter.  When 
Sheridan  was  sent  toward  the  .Mexican 
border  in  .March.  ixr,7.  there  was  nothing 


left  for  Louis  Napoleon  but  to  withdraw. 
which  he  did.   leaving   Maximilian   to  liis 

fate. 

Intil  the  present  exigency  in  Vene/.nel;i 
there  has  been  no  other  contingency  re- 
quiring any  positive  assertion  of  this  doc- 
t rine. — Springfield  Republican. 


PRESIDENT 

CLEVELAND'S  MESSAGE. 

1895- 


On  December •Hh,  1895,  President  G rover  Cleveland  transmitted  to  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  the  following  message  with  reference  to  a 
boundary  dispute  of  long  standing  between  Great  Britain  arid  Venezuela. 
The  United  {States  had  asked  that  England  consent  to  a  demand  made  by 
Venezuela  that  the  matter  be  submitted  to  arbitration.  After  some  years  of 
negotiation,  Lord  Salisbury,  at  the  head  of  the  English  government,  finally 
refused  to  accede  to  the  request.  President  Cleveland's  message  fully  re- 
presents the  position  of  the  United  States.  Its  emphatic  and  extraordinary 
nature  created  marked  excitement  throughout  the  United  States  and 
Europe. 


To  Congress— In  my  annual  message 
addressed  to  the  Congress  on  the  third 
iliird  instant.  I  called  attention  to  the 
pending  boundary  controversy  between 
(Jrcat  Britain  and  the  republic  of  Ven- 
e/nela.  and  recited  the  substance  of  a 
representation  made  by  this  government, 
to  her  Kritannie  majesty's  government, 
suggest  ing  reasons  why  such  disputes 
should  be  submitted  to  arbitration  for 
settlement,  and  inquiring  whether  it 
would  be  so  submitted. 

The  answer  of  the  British  government, 
which  was  then  awaited,  has  since  been 
received,  and  together  with  the  dispatch 
to  which  it  is  a  reply  is  hereto  appended. 
Such  reply  is  embodied  in  two  communi- 
cations addressed  by  the  British  prime 
minister  to  Sir  Julian  Pauncefote,  the 
British  ambassador  at  this  capital.  It 
will  be  seen  that  one  of  these  conimuni- 
ca lions  is  devoted  exclusively  to  observa- 
tions upon  the  Monroe  doctrine,  and 
claims  that  in  the  present  instance  a  new 
and  strange  extension  and  development 
..I  this  doctrine  is  insisted  on  by  the 
Tinted  Stales,  that  the  reasons  .justifying 
an  appeal  to  tli<>  doctrine  enunciated 
by  Tresident  Monroe  are  generally  inap- 
plicable "to  the  state  oTthings  in  which 
we  live  at  the  present  day,"  and  especially 


inapplicable  to  a  controversy  involving 
the  boundary  line  bet  wren  (ii-eat  Britain 
and  Venezuela. 

Without  attempting  extended  argu- 
ments in  reply  to  these  positions  it  may 
not*  be  amiss  to  suggest  that  the  doctrine 
upon  which  we  stand  is  strong  and  sound, 
because  its  enforcement  is  important  to 
our  peace  and  safety  as  a  nation  and  is 
essential  to  the  integrity  of  our  free  in- 
stitutions and  the  tranquil  maintenance 
of  our  distinctive  form  of  government.  It 
was  intended  to  apply  to  every  stage  of 
our  national  life,  and  cannot  become  ob- 
solete while  our  republic  endures.  If  the 
balance  of  power  is  justly  a  cause  for 
jealous  anxiety  among  the  governments 
of  the  old  world,  and  a  subject  for  our 
absolute  non-interference,  none  the  less 
is  an  observance  of  the  Monroe  doctrine 
of  vital  concern  to  oiu*  people  and  their 
government. 

Assuming,  therefore,  that  we  may  prop- 
erly insist  upon  the  doctrine  without  re- 
gard to  "the  state  of  things  in  which  we 
live,"  or  any  changed  conditions  here  or 
elsewhere,  it  is  not  apparent  why  its  ap- 
plication n  ay  not  he  invoked  in  the  pres- 
ent controversy.  If  a  Kuropean  power. 
by  an  extension  of  its  boundaries,  lakes 
possession  of  the  territory  of  one  of  our 


THE   VENEZUELAN    QUESTION 


neighboring  republics  against  its  will  and 
in  derogation  of  its  rights,  it  is  difficult 
to  see  why,  to  that  extent,  such  European 
power  does  not  thereby  attempt  to  ex- 
tend its  system  of  government  to  that 
portion  of  this  continent  wrhich  is  thus 
taken.  This  is  the  precise  action  which 
President  Monroe  declared  to  be  "danger- 
ous to  our  peace  and  safety,"  and  it  can 
make  no  difference  Avhether  the  Euro- 
pean system  is  extended  by  an  advance 
of  frontier  or  otherwise. 

It  is  also  suggested  in  the  British  reply 
that  we  should  not  seek  to  apply  the 
Monroe  doctrine  to  the  pending  dispute, 
because  it  does  not  embody  any  principle 
of  international  law  which  "is  founded  on 
the  general  consent  of  nations,"  and  "that 
no  statesman,  however  eminent,  and  no 
nation,  however  powerful,  are  competent 
to  insert  into  the  code  of  international 
law  a  novel  principle  which  was  never 
recognized  before  and  which  has  not 
since  been  accepted  by  the  governments 
of  any  other  country." 

Practically  the  principle  for  which  we 
contend  has  peculiar,  if  not  exclusive  re- 
lation to  the  United  States.  It  may  not 
have  been  admitted  in  so  many  words  to 
the  code  of  international  law,  but  since 
in  international  councils  every  nation  is 
entitled  to  the  rights  belonging  to  it,  if 
the  enforcement  of  the  Monroe  doctrine 
is  something  we  may  justly  claim,  it  has 
its  place  in  the  code  of  international  law 
as  certainly  and  as  securely  as  if  it  were 
specifically  mentioned,  and  when .  the 
United  States  is  a  suitor  before  the  high 
tribunal  that  administers  international 
law,  the  question  to  be  determined  is 
whether  or  not  we  present  claims  which 
the  justice  of  that  code  of  law  find  to  be 
right  and  valid. 

The  Monroe  doctrine  finds  its  recogni- 
tion in  those  principles  of  international 
law  which  are  based  upon  the  theory 
that  every  nation  shall  have  its  rights 
protected  'and  its  just  claims  enforced. 

Of  course,  this  government  is  entirely 
confident  that  under  the  sanction  of  this 
doctrine  we  have  clear  rights  and  un- 
doubted claims.  Nor  is  this  ignored  in  the 
British  reply.  The  prime  minister,  while 
not  admitting  that  the  Monroe  doctrine 
is  applicable  to  present  conditions,  states: 
"In  declaring  that  the  United  States 
would  resist  any  such  enterprise  if  it 
was  contemplated,"  President  Monroe 
adopted  a  policy  which  received  the  en- 
tire sympathy  of  the  English  government 
of  that  date.  He  further  declares: 
"Though  the  language  of  President  Mon- 


roe is  directed  to  the  attainment  of  ob- 
jects which  most  Englishmen  would 
agree  to  be  salutary,  it  is  impossible  to 
admit  that  they  have  been  inscribed  by 
any  adeqtate  authority  in  the  code  of  in- 
ternational law." 

Again  he  says:  "They  (her  majesty's 
government)  fully  concur  with  the  view 
which  President  Monroe  apparently  en- 
tertained, that  any  disturbance  of  the  ex- 
isting territorial  distribution  in  that  hemi- 
sphere by  any  fresh  acquisitions  on  the 
part  of  any  European  state  would  be  a 
highly  inexpedient  change." 

In  the  belief  that  the  doctrine  for  which 
we  contend  was  clear  and  definite,  that  it 
was  founded  upon  substantial  considera- 
tions and  involved  our  safety  and  wel- 
fare, that  it  was  %illy  applicable  to  our 
present  conditions  and  to  the  state  of  the 
world's  progress,  and  that  it  was  directly 
related  to  the  pending  controversy  and 
without  any  conviction  as  to  the  iinal 
merits  of  the  dispute,  but  anxious  to  learn 
in  a  satisfactory  and  conclusive  manner 
whether  Great  Britain  sought,  under  a 
claim  of  boundary,  to  extend  her  posses- 
sions on  this  continent  without  right,  or 
whether  she  merely  sought  posessiou  of 
territory  facility  included  within  her  lines 
of  ownership,  this  government  proposed 
to  the  government  of  Great  Britain  a  re- 
sort to  arbitration  as  the  proper  moans 
of  settling  the  question  to  the  end  that 
a  vexatious  boundary  dispute  between 
two  contestants  might  be  determined  and 
our  exact  standing  and  relation  in  re- 
spect to  the  controveisy  might  be  made 
clear. 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  correspondence 
herewith  submitted  that  this  proposition 
has  been  declined  by  the  British  govern- 
ment upon  the  grounds  which,  under  the 
circumstances  seem  to  rne  10  be  far  from 
satisfactory.  It  is  deeply  disappointing 
that  such  an  appeal,  actuated  by  the  most 
friendly  feelings  towards  both  nations  di- 
rectly concerned,  addressed  to  the  sense 
of  justice  and  to  the  magnanimity  of  one 
of  the  great  powers  of  the  world  a  ml 
touching  its  relations  to  one  compara- 
tively weak  and  small,  should  have  pro- 
duced no  better  results. 

The  course  to  be  pursued  by  this  gov- 
ernment in  view  of  the  present  coudi- 
dition  does  not  appear  to  admit  of  serious 
doubt.  Having  labored  faithfully  for 
many  years  to  induce  Great  Britain  to 
submit  this  dispute  to  impartial  arbi- 
tration, and  having  been  now  finally  ap- 
prised of  her  refusal  to  do  so,  nothing  re- 
mains but  to  accept  the  situation.  i<> 
recognize  its  plain  requirements  and  deal 


AND   THE   MONROE   DOCTRINE. 


with  it  accordingly.  Great  Britain's  pres- 
ent proposition  has  never  thus  far  been 
regarded  as  admissible  by  Venezuela, 
though  any  adjustment  of  the  boundary 
which  that  country  may  deem  for  her  ad- 
vantage and  may  enter  into  of  her  own 
free  will  cannot,  of  course,  be  objected 
to  by  the  United  States.  Assuming,  how- 
ever, that  the  attitude  of  Venezuela  will 
remain  unchanged,  the  dispute  has 
reached  such  a  stage  as  to  make  it  now 
incumbert  upon  the  United  States  to  take 
measures  to  determine  with  sufficient  cer- 
tainty for  its  justification  what  is  the 
true  divisional  line  between  the  republic 
of  Venezuela  and  British  Guiana.  The 
inquiry  to  that  end  should,  of  course, 
be  conducted  carefully  and  judicially  and 
due  weight  should  be  given  to  all  avail- 
able evidence,  records  and  facts  in  sup- 
port of  the  claims  of  both  parties. 

In  order  that  such  an  examination 
should  be  prosecuted  in  a  thorough  and 
satisfactory  manner,  I  suggest  that  the 
congress  make  an  adequate  appropriation 
for  the  expenses  of  a  commission  to  be 
appointed  by  the  executive,  who  shall 
make  the  necessary  investigation  and  re- 
port upon  the  matter  with  the  least  pos- 
sible delay.  When  such  report  is  made 


and  accepted  it  will,  in  my  opinion,  be 
the  duty  of  the  United  States  to  resist 
by  every  means  in  its  power  as  a  willful 
aggression  upon  its  rights  and  interests, 
the  appropriation  by  Great  Britain  of 
any  lands  or  the  exercise  of  govern- 
mental jurisdiction  over  any  territory 
which,  after  investigation,  we  have  deter- 
mined of  right  belongs  to  Venezuela. 

In  making  these  recommendations  I  am 
fully  alive  to  the  responsibility  incurred 
and  keenly  realize  all  the  consequences 
that  may  follow. 

I  am,  nevertheless,  firm  in  my  convic- 
tion that  while  it  is  a  grievous  thing  to 
contemplate  the  two  great  English  speak- 
ing peoples  of  the  world  as  being  other- 
wise than  friendly  competitors  in  the  on- 
ward march  of  civilization  and  strenuous 
and  worthy  rivals  in  all  the  arts  of  peace, 
there  is  no  calamity  which  a  great  nation 
can  invite  which  equals  that  which  fol- 
lows a  supine  submission  to  wrong  and 
injustice  and  the  consequent  loss  of  na- 
tional self-respect  and  honor,  beneath 
wrhich  is  shielded  and  defended  a  people's 
safety  and  greatness. 

(Signed)  GROVER  CLEVELAND. 

Executive  Mansion,  Dec.  17,  1895. 


AMERICANS  AROUSED. 


Kignt    Days  of  Excitement  Tfrrougliotit  tlie 

United  States. 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1895. 

President  Cleveland  transmits  his  Venezuelan  message  to   congress.     It   is  received 
with  applause  in  both  Senate  and  House  without  regard  to  party   lines.    The  American 
press,  with  the  exception  of  the  Neic  York  World  and  Post  and  the  Baltimore  Sun,  ap- 
prove it.     The  English  press  is  almost  unanimous  in  resentment,  attributing  the  mesage 
to  political  motives. 

The  Executive  committee  of  the  council  of  the  Erish  National  Alliance  of  America 
passes  resolutions  offering  100,000  Irish  soldiers  in  event  of  war  with  England  arising  from 
the  President's  message. 

The  Confederate  Veterans  Camp,  of  New  York,  offers  a  company  of  Confederate  vet- 
erans in  case  of  war. 

Bears  on  the  New  York  Stock  Exchange  begin  an  attack  on  all  classes  of  stocks. 

WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  18th,  1895. 

The  House  of  Representatives  passes  a  bill  giving  the  President  authority  to  appoint 
a  commission  to  investigate  the  Venezuelan  boundary  according  to  the  recommendations 
of  his  message,  and  appropriating  $100,000  for  the  expenses  of  the  commission. 

Bills  are  offered  in  both  houses  of  Congress  appropriating  $100,000,000,  to  be  raised  by 
popular  loan,  to  strengthen  the  national  defenses. 

Messages  received  at  the  White  House  from  all  portions  of  the  country  and  from  all 
political  parties  congratulating  the  President  on  his  mespage. 

The  hostile  tone  of  the  British  press  seems  to  arouse  the  war  spirit  throughout  the 
United  States. 

Lord  Salisbury  manifests  anxiety  when  the  text  of  the  President's  message  is  trans- 
mitted to  him. 

Many  continentinal  papers  of  Europe  take  a  stand  against  the  Monroe  Doctrine. 

Ambassador  Bayard  delivers  a  speech  at  a  dinner  in  London  of  the  Actors  Fund  Ben- 
efit in  which  he  speaks  of  the  American  and  English  peoples  as  "  children  of  brain  and 
heart,  born  of  common  ancestry,  who  could  not  be  divided." 

The  President's  message  is  read  before  Company  C,,  of  the  Indiana  National  Guard, 
at  Anderson,  Indiana.,  and  before  the  entire  high  school  at  Buffalo,  New  York. 

Directors  of  the  American  Humane  Education  Society  and  Massachusetts  Society  for 
Prevention  of  Cruelty  to  Animals  pass  resolutions  calling  on  the  "  God  of  Battles"  to  pre- 
vent war. 

The  Virginia  House  of  Delegates  unanimously  adopts  a  resolution  upholding  the  Pres- 
dent. 

An  Alabama  citizen  offers  to  raise  and  equip  a  regiment  for  war. 

Judge  Grosscup,  at  Peoria,  Ills.,  praises  the  message  from  the  bench. 

Union  veterans  of  New  York  endorse  the  President  and  offer  support  if  it  be  needed. 


EIGHT    DAYS    OF   EXCITEMENT.  7 

The  First  Infantry,  National  Guard  of  Missouri,  writes  the  President  that  it  is  ready 
for  service. 

The  Freeman's  Journal  of  Ireland  thinks  Lord  Salisbury  will  have  to  recede  from  his 
position. 

Canadian  papers  say,  "They  may  make  us  suffer  but  they  cannot  make  us  yield." 

(Jovernor  Altgeld,  of  Illinois,  criticises  the  message  disapprovingly. 

Venezuela  generally  rejoices,  Caracas  is  en  fete.  The  women  boycott  English  man- 
ufacturers. 

The  Manchester  (England)  Stock  Exchange  goes  into  a  panic.  Operators  on  all 
European  bourses  are  alarmed.  The  opinion  is  expressed  that  the  message  will  render 
the  placing  of  more  United  States  bonds  in  London  impossible. 

A  theatrical  audience  in  Denver  applauds  an  anti-English  sentiment  in  the  play  of 
Marmion,  where  England  is  spoken  of  as  "the  most  traitorous  and  treacherous  of  nations." 

As  the  day  progresses  a  general  scare  deyelops  in  financial  circles.  London  begins 
unloading  American  securities,  selling  2p,000  to  30,000  shares  in  the  morning  market. 

American  bears  on  the  New  York  Exchange  take  advantage  of  the  situation  and  crowd 
"  Industrials"  for  sale.  Sugar  refining,  in  which  few  or  no  shares  are  held  abroad,  closes 
one  per  cent.  off.  The  market  closes  with  all  stocks 'lower.  The  foreign  selling  of  the 
morning  was  in  Louisville  and  Nashville,  St.  Paul,  Southern  Railway,  and  M.  K.  &  T. 
Selling  influences  exchange  and  rates  for  sterling  advance  to  $4.88^  and  $4.90,  presaging 
gold  exports. 

THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  19,  1895. 

rihe  Senate  unanimously  agrees  to  commit  the  House  bill  on  the  Venezuela  Com- 
mission to  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  discussing  the  message  with  dignity  and 
deliberation  and  without  exception  endorsing  the  President's  definition  of  the  Monroe 
Doctrine.  "It  is  too  big  a  question  for  party  purposes  and  party  gain, "says  Senator  Teller. 
"Our  politics  stop  at  the  water's  edge,"  says  Senator  Lodge. 

The  British  press  thinks  it  discovers  in  the  deliberation  of  the  Senate  a  change  in 
the  tone  of  the  American  public.  However,  the  Westminster  Gazette  expresses  the  opin- 
ion that  Lord  Salisbury  played  into  President  Cleveland's  hands  by  attacking  the  Mon- 
roe Doctrine  unnecessarily.  Many  papers  like  the  Pall  Mall  Gazette  treat  the  whole 
matter  as  a  joke  and  "wonder  when  will  come  the  relieving  laugh,  for  with  that 
Anglo-Saxon  peal  we  shall,  for  the  first  time,  hear  the  true  voice  of  America." 

At  the  annual  dinner  of  the  British  Public  Schools  and  Universities  Association  in 
New  York,  Rev.  Jocelyn  Johnstone  says,  "The  man  who  threatens  war  is  a  traitor  to  hu_ 
manity  itself." 

The  Berlin  Kreuz  Zeitung  says,  "England  must  remember  that  the  time  has  gone  by 
when  the  growl  of  the  lion  sufficed  to  secure  advantages  where  it  had  no  rights."     The 
Voxxische  Zeitung  counsels 'European  support  of  England  "lest  Yankeedom  should  come 
to  believe  it  has  but  to  command  the  old  continent  to  obey." 
•••-  The  Virginia  Senate  upholds  the  President  by  divided  vote. 

The  Hibernian  Rifles  of  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.,  tencfer  their  services  to  the  President  in  the 
event  of  war. 

Hale,  of  Mainp,  introduces  a  bill  into  the  Senate  for  the  construction  of  six  battle 
ships  and  twenty-five  .torpedo  boats. 

Leading  bankers  and  brokers  in  London  hold  a  meeting  to  consider  the  financial  as- 
pect of  the  Venezuelan  matter,  and  to  discuss  international  credits.  They  decide  to  post- 
pone action  to  ascertain  the  later  and  "cooler"  American  sentiment.  Nevertheless  the 
market  opens  with  heavy  sales,  aid  closes  with  more  offerings  than  buyers,  and  with  money 
more  favorable  to  lenders  than  borrowers.  International  stocks  suffer  heavily,  St.' Paul 


8  EIGHT    DAYS   OF    EXCITEMENT. 

showing  the  greatest  decline,  its  stock  being  held  largely  abroad.  Heavy  declines  are 
noted  in  comparatively  inactive  stocks,  such  as  Consolidated  Gas,  Jersey  Central  and 
others,  indicating  that  a  large  percentage  of  the  sales  arise  from  the  short  interests.  An- 
nouncement that  gold  shipments  on  Saturday  will  aggregate  84,000,000  causes  a  flurry  in 
call  loans.  It  begins  to  be  apparent  that  capital  generally  is  anxious  over  the  situation. 

FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  20,  1895. 

The  day  opens  with  Wall  street  in  a  scare,  and  London  hammering  American  securities. 

The  Senate  passes  the  House  bill  for  the  Venezuelan  commission,  voting  down  all 
amendments  Senator  Lodge  declares  that  London's  calling  in  of  loans  is  not  honorable 
and  will  not  frighten  the  American  people. 

American  securities  jump  two  and  four  points  between  sales  in  London.  Threats  are 
circulated  of  return  of  securities  from  everywhere,  frightening  New  York  and  starting  the 
calling  of  money  loans.  A  consequent  shifting  of  obligations  is  reflected  in  the  rise  of 
money  rates  which  jump  up  to  6, 12,  15,  25  and  50  per  cent  in  rapid  succession,  some  loans 
being  made  at  80  per  cent.  Three  small  firms  on  Wall  Street  fail.  The  feeling  of  anxiety 
becomes  intensified.  Rumors  are  circulated  that  the  clearing  house  has  called  a  meeting 
to  consider  issuing  loan  certificates.  The  only  reassuring  sign  is  that  there  is  no  special 
demand  for  money,  the  apprehension  seeming  to  come  from  small  lenders.  The  decline  in 
stock  becomes  serious.  St.  Paul  falls  off  ten  points;  Sugar  Refining,  Chicago  Gas,  Rock 
Island,  Louisville  &  Nashville,  Missouri  Pacific,  Southern  Ry.  preferred,  and  U.  S.  Leather 
fluctuates  violently  from  five  to  eight  points  down.  At  times  stocks  can  hardly  be  sold. 

Senator  Sherman's  speech  on  the  Venezuelan  Commission  bill,  counseling  delibera- 
tion, and  the  unexpected  announcement  that  only  13,100,000  of  gold  is  to  be  shipped  on 
Saturday  strengthens  the  market  in  the  afternoon,  but  the  strain  on  the  street  has  been 
so  great  that  five  more  firms  fail.  Sentiment  in  some  quarters  begins  to  turn  against  the 
President.  Stocks  seem  to  be  forced  up  and  down  for  effect. 

President  Cleveland  transmits  to  Congress  the  following  message  urging  financial  leg- 
plation.  It  is  preceded  by  an  excited  Cabinet  meeting  which  adjourns  long  enough  to 
allow  the  President  to  write  the  message. 

FINANCIAL  MESSAGE. 

To  the  Congress: — In  my  last  message,  the  evils  of  our  present  financial  system  were 
plainly  pointed  out,  and  the  causes  and  means  of  the  depletion  of  government  gold  were 
explained.  It  was  therein  stated  that  after  all  the  efforts  that  had  been  made  by  the  ex- 
ecutive branch  of  the  government  to  protect  our  gold  reserve  by  the  issuance  of  bonds, 
amounting  to  more  than  $162,000,000,  such  reserve  then  amounted  to  but  little  more  than 
679,000,000  that  about  $16,000,000  had  been  withdrawn  from  such  reserve,  during  the  month 
next  previous  to  the  date  of  that  message  and  quite  large  withdrawals  for  shipment  in 
the  immediate  future  were  predicted. 

The  contingency  then  feared  has  reached  us,  and  the  withdrawal  of  gold  since  the 
communication  referred  to  and  others  that  appear  inevitable,  threatening  such  a  deple- 
tion in  our  government  gold  reserve  as  brings  u«  face  to  face  with  the  necessity  of  further 
action  for  its  protection.  This  condition  is  intensified  by  the  prevailence  in  certain 
quarters  of  sudden  and  unusual  apprehension  and  timidity  in  business  circles. 

We  are  in  the  midst  of  another  season  of  perplexity,  caused  by  our  dangerous  and 
fatuous  financial  operations.  These  may  be  expected  to  recur  with  certainty  as  long  as 
there  is  no  amendment  in  our  financial  system.  If  in  this  particular  instance  our  pre- 
dicament is  at  all  influenced  by  a  recent  insistence  upon  the  position  we  should  occupy  in 
our  relation  to  certain  questions  concerning  our  foreign  policy,  this  furnishes  a  signal  and 
impressive  warning  that  even  the  patriotic  sentiment  of  our  people  is  not  an  adequate 
substitute  for  a  sound  financial  policy. 


EIGHT   DAYS   OF    EXCITEMENT.  (.) 

Of  course  there  can  be  no  doubt  in  any  thoughtful  mind  as  to  the  complete  solvency 
of  our  nation,  nor  can  there  be  any  just  apprehension  that  the  American  people  will  be  sat- 
isfied with  less  than  an  honest  payment  of  our  public  obligations  in  the  recognized  money 
of  the  world.  We  should  not  overlook  the  fact,  however,  that  aroused  fear  is  unreasoning 
and  must  be  taken  into  account  in  all  efforts  to  avert  public  loss  and  sacrifice  of  our 
people's  interests. 

The  real  and  sensible  cure  for  our  recurring  troubles  can  only  be  effected  by  a  com- 
plete change  in  our  financial  scheme.  Pending  that  the  executive  branch  of  the  govern- 
ment will  not  relax  its  efforts  nor  abandon  its  determination  to  use  every  means  within 
its  reach  to  maintain  before  the  world  American  credit,  nor  will  there  be  any  hesitation  in 
exhibiting  its  confidence  in  the  resources  of  our  country  and  the  constant  patriotism  of 
our  people. 

In  view,  however,  of  the  peculiar  situation  now  confronting  us,  I  have  ventured  to 
herein  express  the  earnest  hope  that  the  Congress,  in  default  of  inauguration  of  a  better 
system  of  finance,  will  not  take  a  recess  from  its  labors  before  it  has,  by  legislative  enact- 
ment or  declaration,  done  something,  not  only  to  remind  those  apprehensive  among  our 
people  that  the  resources  of  this  government  and  a  scrupulous  regard  for  honest  dealing^ 
affords  sure  guarantee  of  unquestioned  safety  and  soundness,  but  to  reassure  the  world 
that,  with  these  factors  and  the  patriotism  of  our  citizens,  the  ability  and  determination 
of  our  nation  to  meet  in  any  circumstances  every  obligation  it  incurs,  do  not  admit  of 
question. 

I  ask,  at  the  hands  of  the  Congress,  such  prompt  aid  as  it  alone  has  the  power  to  give, 
to  prevent,  in  a  time  of  fear  and  apprehension,  any  sacrifice  of  the  peoples'  interests  and 
the  public  funds  or  the  impairment  of  our  public  credit  in  an  effort  by  the  executive 
action  to  relieve  the  dangers  of  the  present  contingency. 

GROVER  CLEVELAND, 
Executive  Mansion,  December  20,  1895. 

After  the  above  message  was  read  the  Senate  adjourned  till  Saturday. 

The  Novoe  Vremja,  of  St.  Petersburg,  Russia,  predicts,  in  event  of  war  between  the 
United  States  and  England  "an  hour  of  bitter  retribution  for  a  past  upon  which  English- 
men pride  themselves,  forgetting  that  successes  gained  by  guile  and  force  are  never 
enduring." 

A  meeting  of  influential  citizens  in  Panama  calls  a  demonstration  for  the  23d  "intend- 
ed to  be  demonstrative  of  the  gratitude  of  South  America"  for  President  Cleveland's 
message. 

Wheat  and  cotton  break  \%  cents  and  15  points  respectively;  then  comes  heavy  buy- 
in  which  England  takes  a  hand. 

Denver  mining  stocks  drops  five  to  fifteen  points.  Chicago  and  Philadelphia  stock 
exchanges  respond  to  the  general  slump.  Also  Montreal  Exchange. 

S^me  Boston  bankers  petition  for  a  meeting  of  the  exchange  to  appoint  a  commission 
to  go  to  Washington  in  protest  against  the  political  situation. 

President  Austin  Scott  of  Rutgers  College  calls  President  Cleveland  the  "  king  of 
Jingoes,"  and  says  the  country  is  "  drunk  with  passion." 

SATURDAY,  DECEMBER  21,  1895. 

London  bears  continue  the  raid  on  American  securities,  circulating  wild  rumors  and 
attacking  "  indiscriminately  and  unsparingly."  The  entire  American  financial  and  com- 
mercial system  is  spoken  of  as  rotten.  The  real  leaders  of  the  financial  world,  says  the 
New  York  Sun,  evidently  decided  to  try  the  administering  of  a  sharp  touch  of  disaster 
as  an  object  lesson  against  war. 

Queen  Victoria  shows  her  anxiety  by  renewed  consultations  with  various  ministers  of 
state. 


10  EIGHT    DAYS   OF    EXCITEMENT. 

The  jocose  reception  of  President  Cleveland's  message  in  England  begins  to  give  way 
to  more  serious  consideration  and  less  positive  opposition  from  the  press. 

The  House  of  Respresentatives  responds  to  the  President's  call  for  financial  aid  and 
tables  the  holiday  recess  resolution;  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  begins  framing  a  bill 
to  meet  the  treasury  deficiency. 

Evidences  develop  on  the  New  York  Stock  Exchange  of  investment  buying  on  a  large 
scale.  Banks  agree  to  stand  by  sound  members  of  the  exchange.  Bears  in  London,  to- 
ward the  close  of  the  market,  begin  to  buy  in;  their  demand  advances  prices  two  or  three 
points.  Foreign  arbitrage  houses  in  New  York  continue  buying  from  the  time  the  market 
opens.  Evidences  are  palpable  in  Throgmorton  Street,  London,  that  the  panic  is  artifi- 
cial. In  New  York  the  largest  dealing  is  in  Industrials  which  have  no  foreign  holders. 
The  efforts  to  depress  stocks  show  signs  of  exhaustion  about  2  o'clock.  The  news  that 
Congress  will  take  immediate  action  on  the  relief  of  the  treasury  aids  the  settling  tenden- 
cy of  the  market. 

The  Paris  Temps  prints  a  despatch  from  Rome  saying  the  Emperor  of  Italy  offers  to 
arbitrate  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States. 

San  Francisco  bankers  and  capitalists  do  not  respond  to  the  panic. 

General  Cabell  of  the  Trans-Mississippi  Department  of  the  Confederate  Veterans 
telegraphs  to  Secretary  Lament  an  offer  of  50,000  men  in  case  of  war. 

President  Cleveland  signs  the  Venezuelan  Commission  Bill. 

Government  organs  in  Germany  attack  President  Cleveland's  attitude.  Others,  op- 
posing the  message,  rejoice  at  its  rebuke  of  the  "world-wide  arrogance  of  England." 

The  Westminster  Gazette  hopes  England  will  make  it  clear  that  she  is  not  attacking 
the  Monroe  Doctrine  or  seeking  to  raise  that  issue. 

Vice-President  Stevenson  lays  before  the  Senate  the  following  resolution  from  both 
houses  of  the  Brazilian  congress  : 

"The  Federal  Senate  of  the  United  States  of  Brazil  sends  its  greeting  to  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States  of  America  upon  the  worthy  message  of  President  Cleveland,  who  so 
strenuously  guards  the  dignity,  the  sovereignty,  and  the  freedom  of  the  American  nations." 

A  London  trade  organization  known  as  the  Baltic  cheers  "  Yankee  Doodle." 

Women  at  the  Pilgrim  Mothers'  banquet,  in  New  York,  speak  for  peace. 

The  London  Peace  Society  arranges  for  Sunday  sermons  in  over  one  hundred  pulpits 
urging  peace  at  all  times. 

SUNDAY,  DECEMBER  22,  1895. 

London  ministers  preach  peace  in  many  pulpits  at  the  invitation  of  the  Peace  Society. 

Many  American  pulpits  oppose  war  and  hasty  proceedings  in  the  Venezuelan   matter. 

Brokers  in  New  York  become  much  concerned  over  failure  to  receive  their  customary 
cable  advices  from  London. 

The  largest  assemblage  of  bankers,  brokers  and  capitalists  since  the  Baring  failure  in 
1890  is  held  in  the  Windsor  Hotel,  New  York.  A  number  of  leading  bank  presidents  hold 
an  informal  meeting  in  the  evening. 

St.  Louis  decides  to  organize  a  local  naval  company. 

A  Russian  priest  in  Samokin  says  American  Russians  would  take  arms  against  Eng- 
land in  the  event  of  war. 

Gold  is  reported  to  be  coming  in  great  quantities  into  the  sub-treasury  at  Cincinnati. 

President  Harper  of  Chicago  University  sustains  President  Cleveland  in  vigorous 
language. 

Ministers  at  Cleveland,  Ohio,  sustain  the  President. 

MONDAY,  DECEMBER  23,  1895. 

Orders  from  the  continent  for  purchases  of  American  securities  surprise  the  London 
market.  London  does  not  buy  on  its  own  account.  An  American  banker  in  London  ad- 


EIGHT    DAYS    OF    EXCITEMENT.  11 

vises  Engligh  people  not  to  believe  the  financial  excitement  has  repressed  the  American 
war  spirit,  for  the  American  people,  he  says,  woi^d  rather  fight  than  not  if  it  comes  to  a 
question  of  making  a  test  case  of  upholding  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  The  London  stock 
market  fluctuates  all  day,  but  at  the  close  of  the  Exchange  there  is  an  utter  absence  of 
excitement.  In  Manchester  there  is  a  decided  upward  movement  of  stocks,  American 
railroad  securities  averaging  3  per  cent,  higher  than  on  Saturday.  Liverpool  and  Glas- 
gow Exchanges  also  become  steady. 

The  New  York  Clearing  House  announces  its  readiness  to  issue  loan  certificates. 
Stocks  immediately  advance.  London  hears  of  the  action  before  Wall  street  does  and  bids 
above  the  closing  prices  of  Saturday.  By  noon  the  prices  of  stocks  in  New  York  gain  3  to 
5  paints.  Philadelphia  responds  to  the  general  improvement.  Grain  and  cotton  go  up, 
English  buyers  contributing  to  the  movement.  The  New  York  Clearing  house  action 
brings  private  bankers  into  the  loan  market.  Call  money  closes  at  5  per  cent. 

Actual  purchases  of  stocks  become  a  feature  of  the  day  in  New  York,  and  the  float- 
ing supply  of  stocks  materially  diminishes.  Many  sales  aggregate  less  than  a  hundred 
shares. 

Comparatively  little  business  responds  to  a  high  sterling  exchange  rate  of  $4.90%. 

The  Chicago  Board  of  Trade  sends  a  telegram  to  speaker  Reed  congratulating  the 
House  of  Representatives  on  ks  "prompt  and  patriotic  action"  to  relieve  the  treasury. 

A  "peace  meeting"  called  in  Cooper  Union,  New  York,  breaks  up  in  confusion. 

English  papers  express  the  opinion  that  America  "has  righted  itself  from  unwisdom 
to  wisdom  in  a  night."  They  are  disposed  to  think  England  will  extend  all  possible  coui" 
tesies  to  the  Venezuelan  Commission. 

Representative  Dalzell  introduces  a  joint  resolution  into  the  House  providing  $1,500, 
000  for  a  reserve  supply  of  projectiles  for  the  navy. 

Tammany  Hall,  New  York,  passes  a  resolution  in  support  of  President  Cleveland's 
Venezuelan  message. 

A  resolution  against  the  Venezuelan  message  is  hissed  in  the  Chicago  Labor  Congress. 

In  the  New  Englanders'  dinner  in  New  York  every  reference  to  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is 
cheered. 

The  Memphis  Cotton  Exchange  advises  farmers  against  planting  cotton,  in  view  of 
the  remote  possibility  of  war. 

The  Chicago  Iroquois  club  passes  strong  resolutions  in  support  of  President  Cleveland. 

TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  24,  1895. 

Venezuela  prepares  for  a  grand  demonstration  on  Christmas  in  honor  of  the  United 
States.  Panama  gives  a  magnificent  demonstration  on  the  23d  in  appreciation  of  Cleve- 
land's Venezuelan  message.  The  Mexican  press  speaks  unanimously  in  support  of  the 
Monroe  Doctrine. 

The  Senate  unanimously  passes  a  bill  presented  by  Senator  Hill  of  New  York  repeal- 
ing the  Confederate  Disability  Act. 

Senator  Allen  of  Nebraska  introduces  a  bill  providing  for  the  establishment  of  a  Pan- 
American  union. 

New  York,  Boston,  Philadelphia  and  Chicago  report  improving  conditions  on  the  ex- 
changes. Money  rates  are  holding  low.  High  sterling  exchange  is  not  promoting  exports 
of  gold. 

London  and  Paris  are  strengthening  in  Americans  on  the  stock  exchanges. 

FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  27,  1895. 

Mining  stocks  are  again  in  full  activity  on  the  Denver  Mining  Exchange. 


THE  BOUNDARY  DISPUTE. 


The  Claims  of  Great  Britain  and  ttie  Conces 
cessions  of  Venezuela. 


The  boundary  dispute  between  Great 
Britain  and  Venezuela  is  one  of  long 
standing,  and  dates  back  to  the  cession 
of  Guiana  to  Great  Britain  by  Holland 
in  1814.  Years  of  fruitless  negotiations 
\\<>re  followed  in  1887  by  the  rupture  of 
diplomatic  relations  between  the  two 
countries. 

Venezuela  was  discovered  by  Christo- 
pher Columbus  July  31,  1498,  on  his  third 
voyage  to  America,  and  the  first  landing 
of  Spaniards  was  made  in  1510.  The 
country  continued  under  Spanish  rule 
until  1810,  when  the  people  rose  to  throw 


off  the  foreign  yoke  under  the  leader- 
ship of  Simon  Bolivar,  the  Washington 
of  South  America.  It  was  in  Caracas 
that  the  movement  for  South  American 
freedom  originated.  Although  independ- 
ence was  assured  by  the  victory  of 
and  the  Spanish  army  withdrew  in 
it  was  not  until  the  peace  of  Madrid  in 
1847,  that  Spain  formally  acknowledged 
the  independence  of  the  republic  <>!' 
Venezuela. 

After  the  war  of  independence,  or  in 
1822,  Venezuela  succeeded  to  the  rights 
of  Spain  in  territory  west  of  the  Esse- 


BOUNDARY  CLAIMED 
BY    ENGLAND. 

•••••  BOUNDARY  CL/\IM£O 
BY  V£NEZUELA. 


THE    CONTESTteD'. TERRITORY 


Tilt:    BOUNDARY    DISPUTE. 


quibo  river,  and  has  always  persistently 
d;i  lined  it.  Great  Britain,  of  course, 
must  base  her  claims,  primarily,  at  leasi. 
on  those  of  Holland  before  her. 

The  province  of  Guiana,  forming  a 
part  of  the  captaincy-general  of  Caracas 
and  pertaining  to  Spain,  was  originally 
bounded  on  the  east  by  the  Atlantic 
ocean  and  on  the  south  by  the  Amazon 
river.  During  the  long  war  waged  by 
the  Dutch  to  liberate  themselves  from' 
Spanish  dominion,  they  occupied  and  suc- 
cessfully held  Essequibo,  Demerara  and 
Surinam  within  this  province  of  Guiana. 
which  places,  by  the  treaty  of  Minister,  in 
H>4X,  were  continued  to  the  government 
of  the  Netherlands.  The  Dutch,  in  viola- 
la  t  ion  of  the  terms  of  this  treaty,  made 
incursions  into  Spanish  Guiana,  but  were 
invariably  opposed  by  the  Spanish  forces. 
That  they  never  considered  themselves 
the  legitimate  owners  of  any  of  the  terri- 
tory west  of  the  Essequibo  river  is  ap- 
parent from  the  fact  that,  in  the  cession 
of  these  places  to  Great  Britain,  made 
in  1814,  they  simply  transferred  their 
colonies  of  Essequibo,  Demerara  and 
Berbice,  without  designating  any  fixed 
boundary  lines. 


ENGLAND'S      EARLY      ASSERTIONS. 

The  earliest  assertions  of  Great 
Britain  to  dominion  beyond  the  Esse- 
quibo were  vague  and  hesitating.  They 
were  based  on  representations  that  the 
Dutch  settlements  had  spread  into  that 
region  and  that  treaties  had  been  exe- 
cuted with  the  Indians  entitling  the  Eng- 
lish to  lands  of  comprehensive  extent. 
To  these  arguments  it  -was  replied  that 
the  original  title  was  vested  in  Spain  by 
virtue  of  discovery,  and  sovereignty: 
that  it  had  never  been  alienated  or  relin- 
quished in  any  manner,  and  that  it 
1  »assed  directly  to  Venezuela. 

Thus  the  case  stood  until  Sir  Robert 
Schombnrg  drew  his  "arbitrary  line"  of 
demarkation  in  1841.  He  set  up  posts  to 
indicate  British  dominion  at  Point  Bar- 
ima,  Aniacuroand  other  localities.  There- 
upon the  Venezuelan  government  made 
a  vigorous  protest  and  Lord  Aberdeen 
promptly  ordered  the  posts  removed. 
Aberdeen  was  so  far  from  urging  extra- 
ordinary claims  that  in  1844  he  spon- 
taneously proposed  to  Dr.  Fortiqiie. 
Venezuelan  plenipotentiary  in  London. 
a  boundary  line  known  as  the  "Aber- 
deen boundary  line." 

This  Aberdeen  proposition  of  1S44 
was  the  first  specific  definition  of  Eng- 
land's  patented  rights,  the  foundation 


for  it  in  international  law  being  the  alle- 
gation of  Dutch  settlement  and  Indian 
treaties. 

LOOKING  TO  ARBITRATION. 

Nothing  further  was  done  until  the 
celebrated  status  quo  of  1850  was  estab- 
lished, whereby  Great  Britain  agreed 
not  to  occupy  or  encroach  upon  the  terri- 
tory in  dispute  in  consideration  of  a  simi- 
lar agreement  on  the  part  of  Venezuela. 
From  1850  to  188G  the  course  of  diplo- 
matic affairs  was  very  shifty.  In  1881 
Lord  Grauville,  after  rejecting  compro- 
mise proposals,  proposed  a  new  line, 
known  as  the  "Granville  IjiifiJ'  In  a  note 
accompanying  this  he  said  this  left  the 
complete  dominion  of  the' mouth  of  the 
Orinoco  to  Venezuela,  which  was  re- 
garded as  equivalent  to  a  formal  dis- 
avowal by  England  of  any  design  upon 
the  Boca  Grande  or  great  mouth  of  the 
riveuJ  In  1883  (Lord  Granville  still  be- 
ing at  the  head  of  the  foreign  office^ 
overtures  were  made  to  Venezuela  for 
amicable  arrangement  of  the  boundary 
difficulty  among  others.  General  Guz- 
man Blanco  wras  thereupon  dispatched 
to  London  by  the  republic  as  envoy  extra- 
ordinary, with  full  powers  to  deal  de- 
finitely with  all  these  issues.  For  the 
first  time  Venezuela  was  represented 
sented  at  the  court  of  St.  James  by  a 
diplomat  of  the  highest  order  of  ability. 
Guzman  Blanco,  instead  of  dallying  with 
vexing  and  impracticable  plans  of  boun- 
dary compromise,  concentrated  all  his 
efforts  to  give  the  controversy  a  new 
direction— in  favor  of  arbitration.  In  this 
endeavor  he  arrived  at  the  very  verge 
of  brilliant  success.  .Tune  18,  1875,  Earl 
Granville  assented  to  the  draft  of  a 
treaty  between  England  and  Venezuela 
which  embraced  an  article  providing  that 
any  differences  not  adjustable  by  the 
usual  means  of  friendly  negotiation 
should  be  submitted  "to  the  arbitration 
of  a  third  power,  or  of  several  powers  in 
amity  with  both  countries,  without  re- 
sorting to  war,"  and  that  the  result  of 
such  arbitration  should  be  binding  upon 
both  governments. 

This  great  diplomatic  stroke  of  Guz- 
man Blanco,  absolutely  bringing  England 
to  bay  on  the  boundary  question,  was. 
however,  immediately  made  of  no  avail 
by  the  overturn  of  the  Gladstone  minis- 
try- Lord  Salisbury,  who  took  ottice  a 
few  days  later,  promptly  rescinded  the 
arbitration  clause  of  the  purposed  treaty. 
Since  that  time  Kngland  lias  persistently 
declined  every  proposal  to  arbitrate  the 


14 


THE   BOUNDARY    DISPUTE. 


matter,  and  is  said  to  have  enlarged  her 
territorial  claims  and  to  have  system- 
atically prosecuted  forcible  aggrandize- 
ments. 

UNDER  ROSEBERY. 

When  Rosebery's  government  came 
in,  however,  less  extravagant  claims  were 
made.  As  "especial  importance"  was 
attached  "to  the  possession  of  the  River 
Guiana  by  British  Guiana,"  it  will  be 
seen  that  as  late  as  1886  the  British 
were  content  to  let  the  line  exclude  from 
their  territory  every  part  of  the  Orinoco 
mouth. 

After  1886  England  cast  aside  all  pre- 
tense of  recognition  of  Venezuela's 
sovereignty  over  the  Boca  Grande.  Lord 
Salisbury,  replying  in  1890  to  United 
States  Minister  Lincoln,  indicated  by  im- 
plication that  his  government  was  un- 
alterably resolved  to  share  equally  with 
Venezuela  the  control  of  that  important 
region.  Meantime  the  absorption  of  the 
interior  has  progressed  without  restraint, 
the  manifest  aim  being  to  assert  undis- 
puted mastery  over  the  extraordinarily 
rich  gold  districts  of  Yuruari.  These  dis- 
tricts lie  very  far  away  from  the  Schom- 
burgk  line,  and  considerably  outside  the 
Aberdeen  line,  wherefore  England  broad- 
ens out  her  claims  to  neutralize  such  in- 
convenient circumstances. 

IMPORTANCE  OP  THE  ORINOCO. 

Extremely  weighty  consideration  of 
empire  and  trade  are  wrapped  up  in 
England's  resolve  not  to  hazard  by  the 
chance  of  arbitration  the  valuable  terri- 
tory which  she  can,  of  course,  hold  in- 
definitely against  a  feeble  state  like 
Venezuela.  While  neither  claiming  nor 
admitting  any  rigid  boundary  line  be- 
tween Venezuela  and  her  colony  of 
British  Guiana,  there  is  one  fixed  point 
at  which  she  purposes  to  originate  a/line, 
and  from  which  she  will  not  deviate. 
The  point  is  on  the  coast,  right  at  the 
center  of  the  littoral  of  the  Boca  Grande, 
or  grand  mouth  of  the  Orinoco  river, 
where  the  small  River  Amacuro  flows 
into  the  sea.  Any  boundary  line  pro- 
jected southward  from  that  point  would 
include  within  British  possessions  the 
Barima  arm  (Brazo  Barima)  of  the  Ori- 
noco and  the  whole  island  of  Barima. 
Thus  the  essential  feature  of  England's 
territorial  contention  is  her  claim  to  full 
equality  with  Venezuela  in  ownership 
and  authority  at  the  main  mouth  of  the 
Orinoco. 

The  importance  of  this  position  for 
'England  is  enormous,  and  even  incalcul- 


able. It  would  give  her  the  finest  strate- 
gic situation  on  the  continent  of  South 
America,  with  absolute  control  of  the  Ori- 
noco and  its  numerous  branches,  con- 
necting with  the  Amazon  through  the 
navigable  streams  of  Cass*quiari — a  net- 
work of  rivers  draining  about  half  the 
continent. 

YURUARIAN  INCIDENT. 

Great  Britain  lays  considerable  stress 
on  the  "Yuruarian  incident."  British 
officers  stationed  in  the  Yuruarian  dis- 
trict, which  is  beyond  the  Schomburgk 
line,  were  arrested  by  Venezuelans,  but 
later  released.  For  this  arrest  Great 
Britain  makes  demand  of  $60,000  "smart 
money."  Lord  Salisbury  contends  this  is 
simply  reparation  for  insult,  but  if  the 
Venezuelans  were  in  their  own  territory 
when  they  made  the  arrests  they  could 
hardly  be  held  for  damages.  So  the  Mon- 
roe doctrine  appears  to  be  involved  in 
the  demand  for  damages  for  the  Yuruar- 
ian incident. 

Since  Great  Britain,  following  the  ne- 
gotiations of  1886,  proceeded  to  occupy 
a  portion  of  Venezuelan  Guiana,  which 
was  the  occasion  of  Venezuela  dissolv- 
ing diplomatic  relations  with  Great  Brit- 
ain, the  southern  republic  has  been  per- 
sistent in  seeking  the  good  offices  of  the 
United  States.  She  has  also  steadily  pro- 
tested against  the  occupation  by  Great 
Britain. 

Venezuela  does  not  attach  the  least 
weight  to  the  circumstance  that  the 
English  have  long  enjoyed  de  facto  pos- 
session, of  part  of  the  disputed  territory 
by  actual  occupation;  she  holds  that  this 
occupation  is  mere  usurpation  and  in- 
vasion. Lord  Salisbury,  on  the  other 
hand,  recently  made  the  claim  that  this 
occupation  gave  Great  Britain  actual 
right,  and  that  what  might  be  subject 
for  arbitration  now  would  not  be  after 
a  longer  period  of  occupation. 

OTHER  BOUNDARIES. 
Other  boundaries  of  Venezuela  have 
been  settled  recently  by  amicable  meth- 
ods. Since  1891  the  frontier  quest  ion 
towards  Colombia  has  been  settled  by 
Spain,  to  which  the  matter  had  been  re- 
ferred. The  boundary  lines  seem  to  have 
been  subject  to  great  dispute.  Before 
the  proclamation  of  independence  the 
province  of  Caracas  had  already  been 
officially  called  Venezuela,  the  meaning 
of  which,  as  now  clearly  understood, 
corresponds  to  the  whole  space  inclosed 
by  the  frontiers  of  Colombia,  Brazil  and 
British  Guiana.  Aided  by  numerous 


THE    BOUNDARY    DISPUTE. 


15 


documents  preserved  in  the  national 
archives,  however,  the  Spanish  arbitra- 
tors were  able  in  this  dispute  to  pro- 
nounce an  official  verdict  substantially  in 
favor  of  Colombia.  Toward  Brazil  the 
Venezuelan  frontier  was  determined  by 
treaty  in  1859. 

Elisee  Reclus,  the  scientist,  in  his 
work  on  the  earth  and  its  inhabitants, 
in  discussing  the  boundaries  to  the  east, 
says  the  English  have  extended  their 
acquisitions  as  far  as  the  mouth  of  the 
Orinoco.  "Thanks  to  this  position  at  the 
entrance  of  the  Orinoco,"  he  continues, 
"Great  Britain  may  hope  some  day  to 
acquire  the  political  and  commercial 
supremacy  in  the  whole  of  the  delta 
region,  facing  which  is  the  important 
military  trading  station  of  Trinidad. 
Since  the  days  of  Sir  Walter  Kaleigh 
England  has  several  times  attempted  to 
penetrate  into  the  interior  of  the  contin- 
ent through  this  gateway.  In  the 


archives  of  the  Indies  there  exists  a 
Spanish  map,  dated  1591,  on  which  tig- 
ures  a  large  island  in  the  middle  of  Tin- 
delta  with  the  legend,  "Here  are  the  Eng- 
lish." In  ISMS  the  British  government 
occupied  various  points  of  the  delta, 
where  its  farthest  station,  standing  on  a 
height  between  the  Orinoco  branches 
and  the  Guarafiche  river,  commanded 
both  the  entrance  of  the  navigable  chan- 
nel and  the  Serpent's  Mouth.  This  strate- 
gic point  was  spoken  of  as  a  future  'Gib- 
raltar,' and  although  it  has  since  been 
abandonded  the  Venezuelans  want  also 
to  recover  Barima  island  and  all  the 
coast  lands  as  far  as  Maruca,  near  Nas- 
sau. They  are  also  anxious  to  secure 
their  gold  fields  on  the  Cuyini  river  from 
any  risk  of  annexation.  But  they  can 
hardly  hope  for  success  in  a  diplomatic 
struggle  with  Great  Britain. "--Chicago 
Record. 


THE     CORRESPONDENCE. 


Secretary    Olraey's    Letter    and    Lord   Salis- 
bury's   Replies. 


SECRETARY  OLNEY'S  LETTER. 
His  Instructions  to  Ambassador  Bayard. 


Department  of  State, 
Washington,  July  20.  is«»r>. 
His  Excellency  Thomas  F.  Bayard,  etc., 

etc.,  etc.,  London: 

Sir— I  am  directed  by  the  president  to 
communicate  to  you  his  views  upon  a 
subject  to  which  he  has  given  much 
anxious  thought,  and  respecting  which 
he  has  not  reached  a  conclusion  with- 
out a  lively  sense  of  its  great  import- 
ance, as  well  as  the  sense  of  responsibil- 
ity involved  in  any  action  now  to  be 
taken. 

It  is  not  proposed,  and  for  present 
purposes,  is  not  necessary,  to  enter  into 
any  detailed  account  of  the  contro- 
versy between  Great  Britain  and  Vene- 
zuela respecting  the  western  frontier  of 
the  colony  of  British  Guiana.  The  dis- 
pute is  of  ancient  date,  and  began  at 
least  as  early  as  the  time  when  Great 


Britain  acquired  by  the  treaty  with  the 
Netherlands  of  1814  the  establishments 
of  Demerara,  Essequibo  and  Berbice. 
From  that  time  to  the  present  the  di- 
viding line  between  these  "establish- 
ments" (now  called  British  Guiana)  and 
Venezuela  has  never  ceased  to  be  a 
subject  of  contention. 

The  claims  of  both  parties,  it  must  be 
conceded,  are  of  a  somewhat  indefinite 
nature.  On  the  one  hand  Venezuela,  in 
every  constitution  of  government  since 
she  became  an  independent  state,  has 
declared  her  territorial  limits  to  be 
those  of  the  captaincy-general  of  Vene- 
zuela in  1810,  yet  out  of  "modera- 
tion and  prudence,"  it  is  said,  she  has 
contented  herself  with  claiming  the  Es- 
sequibo line — the  line  of  the  Essequibo 
river,  that  is — to  be  the  true  boundary 
between  Venezuela  and  British  Guiana. 
On  the  other  hand,  at  least  an  equal  de- 
gree of  indefiniteness  distinguishes  the 
claim  of  Great  Britain.  It  does  not  seem 
to  l>e  asserted,  for  instance,  that  in  1S14 


16 


THE    CORRESPONDENCE. 


the  "establishments"  theii  acquired  by 
Great  Britain  had  any  clearly  defined 
western  limits  which  can  now  be  iden- 
tified, and  which  are  either  the  limits 
insisted  upon  to-day  or,  being  the  original 
limits,  have  been  the  basis  of  legitimate 
territorial  extensions.  On  the  contrary, 
having  the  actual  possession  of  a  district 
(ailed  the  Pomarou  district,  she  appar- 
ently remained  indifferent  as  to  the  exact 
ami  of  the  colony  until  1840,  when  she 
commissioned  an  engineer,  Sir  Robert 
Schombnrgk,  to  examine  and  lay  down 
its  boundaries.  The  result  was  the 
Schomburgk  line,  which  was  fixed  by 
metes  and  bounds,  was  delineated  on 
maps  and  was  at  first  indicated  on  the 
face  of  the  country  itself  by  posts,  mono- 
grams and  other  like  symbols. 

If  it  was  expected  that  Venezuela 
would  acquiesce  in  this  line  the  expecta- 
tion was  doomed  to  speedy  disapppoiut- 
ment.  Venezuela  at  once  protested,  and 
with  such  vigor  and  to  such  purpose  that 
the  line  was  explained  to  be  only  tenta- 
tive— part  of  a  general  boundary  scheme 
concerning  Brazil  and  the  Netherlands, 
as  well  as  Venezuela,  and  the  monu- 
ments of  the  line  set  up  by  Schomburgk 
were  removed  by  the  express  order  of 
Lord  Aberdeen. 

Under  these  circumstances  it  seems 
impossible  to  treat  the  Schomburgk  line 
as  being  the  boundary  claimed  by  Great 
Britain  as  a  matter  of  right,  or  as  any- 
thing but  a  line  originating  in  considera- 
tions of  convenience  and  expediency. 

Since  1840  various  other  boundary 
lines  have  from  time  to  time  been  indi- 
cated by  Great  Britain— but  all  as  con- 
venient lines — lines  to  which  Venezuela's 
assent  has  been  desired, .  but  which  in 
no  instance,  it  is  believed,  have  been  de- 
manded as  matter  of  right.  Thus, 
neither  of  the  parties  is  to-day  stand- 
ing for  the  boundary  line  predicated 
upon  strict  legal  right,  Great  Britain 
having  formulated  no  such  claim  at  all, 
while  Venezuela  insists  upon  the  Esse- 
quibo  line  only  as  a  liberal  concession  to 
her  antagonist. 

Several  other  features  of  the  situa- 
tion remain  to  be  briefly  noticed — the 
continuous  growth  of  the  undefined 
British  claim,  the  fate  of  the  various  at- 
tempts at  arbitration  of  the  controversy 
and  the  part  in  the  matter  heretofore 
taken  by  the  United  States. 

STEADY  ENCROACHMENT. 
As    already    seen,    the    exploitation    of 
the  Schomburgk  line  in  1840  was  at  once 
followed    by    the    protest  of  Venezuela 


and  by  proceedings  on  the  part  of  Great 
Britain,  which  could  fairly  be  inter- 
preted only  as  a  disavowal  of  that  line. 
Indeed,  in  addition  to  the  facts  already 
noticed,  Lord  Aberdeen  himself,  in  LS44. 
proposed  a  line  beginning  at  the  River 
Morocco,  a  distinct  abandonment  of  the 
Schomburgk  line.  Notwithstanding  this, 
however,  every  change  in  the  British 
claim  since  that  time  has  moved  the 
frontier  of  British  Guiana  further  and 
further  to  the  westward  of  the  line  thus 
proposed. 

The  Granville  line  of  1881  placed  tin- 
starting  point  at  a  distance  of  twenty- 
nine  miles  from  the  Morocco,  in  the 
direction  of  Punta  Barima.  The  Rose- 
bery  line  of  1886  placed  it  west  of  the 
Guaima  river,  and  about  that  time,  if 
the  British  authority  knowrn  as  the 
Statesman's  Year  Book  is  to  be  relied 
upon,  the  area  of  British  Guiana  was 
suddenly  enlarged  by  some  33,000  square 
miles,  being  stated  as  76,000  square  miles 
in  1885  and  109,000  square  miles  in  1887. 
The  Salisbury  line  of  1890  fixed  the  starl- 
ing point  of  the  line  in  the  mouth  of  the 
A  ma  euro,  west  of  the  Punta  Barima.  on 
the  Orinoco.  And  finally,  in  1893,  a 
second  Rosebery  line  carried  the  bound- 
ary from  a  point  to  the  west  of  the 
Amacuro  as  far  as  the  source  of  the 
Cumano  river  and  the  Sierra  of  Usu- 
pamo. 

Nor  have  the  various  claims  thus 
enumerated  been  claims  on  paper  merely. 
An  exercise  of  jurisdiction  corresponding 
more  or  less  to  such  claims  has  accom- 
panied or  followed  closely  upon  each. 
and  has  been  the  more  irritating  and  un- 
justifiable if,  as  is  alleged,  an  agreement 
made  in  the  year  1850  bound  both  par- 
ties to  refrain  from  such  occupation 
pending  the  settlement  of  the  dispute. 

While  the  British  claim  has  been  de- 
veloping in  the  manner  above  described. 
Venezuela  has  made  earnest  and  re- 
peated efforts  to  have  the  question  of 
boundary  settled.  Indeed,  allowance  be- 
ing made  for  the  distractions  of  a  war 
of  independence,  and  for  frequent  inter- 
nal revolutions,  it  may  be  fairly  said 
that  Venezuela  has  never  ceased  to 
strive  for.  its  adjustment.  It  could,  of 
course,  do  so  only  through  peaceful 
methods,  any  resort  to  force  as  against 
its  powerful  adversary  being  out  of  the 
question.  Accordingly,  shortly  after  the 
drawing  of  the  Schomburgk  line,  an 
effort  was  made  to  settle  the  boundary 
by  treaty,  and  was  apparently  progress- 
ing towards  a  successful  issue  when  the 


THE   CORRESPONDENCE. 


17 


negotiations  were  brought  to  an  end  in 
1844  by  the  death  of  tin"  Venezuelan 
plenipotentiary. 

VENEZUELA'S  OFFER. 

In  1848  Venezuela  entered  upon  a 
period  of  civil  commotions,  which  lasted 
for  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century, 
and  the  negotiations  thus  interrupted 
in  1844  were  not  renewed  until  1870.  In 
thai  year  Venezuela  offered  to  close  the 
dispute  by  accepting  the  Morocco  line 
proposed  by  Lord  Aberdeen,  but,  with- 
out giving  reasons  for  his  refusal,  Lord 
Granville  rejected  the  proposal,  and  sug- 
gested a  new  line  comprehending  a  large 
tract  of  territory  all  pretension  to  which 
seemed  to  have  been  abandoned  by  the 
previous  action  of  Lord  Aberdeen. 

Venezuela  refused  to  assent  to  it,  and 
negotiations  dragged  along  without  re- 
sult until  1882,  when  Venezuela  con- 
cluded that  the  only  course  open  to  her 
was  arbitration  of  the  controversy.  Be- 
fore she  had  made  any  definite  proposi- 
tion, however,  Great  Britain  took  the 
matter  in  its  own  hands  and  sugnobted 
a  treaty,  which  should  determine  vari- 
ous other  questions,  as  well  as  that  of 
the  disputed  boundary.  The  result  was 
that  a  treaty  was  practically  agreed 
upon  with  the  .Gladstone  government  in 
1886,  containing  a  general  arbitration 
clause,  under  which  the  parties  might 
have  submitted  the  boundary  dispute  to 
the  decision  of  a  third  power,  or  of  sev- 
eral powers,  in  amity  with  both.  Before 
the  actual  signing  of  the  treaty,  how- 
ever, the  administration  of  Mr.  Glad- 
stone was  superseded  by  that  of  Lord 
Salisbury,  which  declined  to  accede  to 
the  arbitration  clause  of  the  treaty,  not- 
withstanding the  reasonable  expectation 
of  Venezuela  to  the  contrary,  based  upon 
the  premier's  emphatic  declaration  in  the 
House  of  Lords,  that  no  serious  govern- 
ment would  think  of  not  respecting  the 
engagements  of  its  predecessor. 

RELATIONS  SUSPENDED. 

Since  then  Venezuela  on  the  one  side 
lias  been  offering  and  calling  for  arbi- 
tration, while  Great  Britain  on  the  other 
lias  responded  by  insisting  upon  the 
conditions  that  any  arbitration  should 
relate  only  to  such  of  the  disputed  terri- 
tory as  lies  west  of  a  line  designated  by 
herself.  As  this  condition  seemed  in- 
admissible to  Venezuela,  and  as,  while 
the  negotiations  were  pending,  new  ap- 
propriations of  what  is  claimed  to  be 
Venezuela  territory  continued  to  be 
made,  Venezuela  in  1887  suspended 


diplomatic  relations  with  Great  Britain, 
protesting  "before  her  British  majesty's 
government,  before  all  civilized  nations. 
and  before  the  world  in  general,  against 
the  acts  of  spoliation  committed  to  her 
detriment  by  the  government  of  Great 
Britain,  which  she  at  no  time  and  on  no 
account  will  recognize  as  capable  of  al- 
tering in  the  least  the  rights  which  she 
has  inherited  from  Spain,  and  respect- 
ing which  she  will  ever  be  willing  to 
'submit  to  the  decision  of  a  third  power." 
Diplomatic  relations  hare  not  since 
been  restored,  though  what  is  claimed 
to  be  new  and  flagrant  British  aggres- 
sions forced  Venezuela  to  resume  nego- 
tiations on  the  boundary  question  in 
1890,  through  its  minister  in  I'aris  and  a 
special  envoy  on  that  subject,  and  in 
1898,  through  a  confidential  agent,  Seuor 
Michelena.  These  negotiations,  however, 
met  with  the  fate  of  other  like  previous 
negotiations,  Great  Britain  refusing  to 
arbitrate  as  to  territory  west  of  an  arbi- 
trary line  drawn  by  herself. 

SENOR  MICHELENA'S   MISSION. 

All  attempts  in  that  direction  were 
definitely  terminated  in  October.  lst>:;. 
when  Senor  Michelena  filed  with  the  for- 
eign office  the  following  declaration:  "I 
perform  a  most  strict  duty  in  raising 
again  in  the  name  of  the  government  of 
Venezuela  a  most  solemn  protest  against 
the  proceedings  of  the  colony  of  British 
Guiana,  constituting  encroachments  upon 
the  territory  of  the  republic  and  against 
the  declaration  contained  in  your  excel- 
lency's communication  that  her  Britan- 
nic majesty's  government  considers  that 
part  of  the  territory  as  pertaining  to 
British  Guiana  and  admits  no  claim  to 
it  on  the  part  of  Venezuela.  In  support 
of  this  protest  I  reproduce  all  the  argu- 
ments presented  to  your  excellency  in 
my  note  of  the  29th  of  last  September, 
and  those  which  have  been  exhibited  by 
the  government  of  Venezuela  on  the 
various  occasions  they  have  raised  the 
same  protest.  I  lay  on  her  Britannic 
majesty's  government  the  entire  re- 
sponsibility of  the  incidents  that  may 
arise  in  the  future  from  the  necessity 
to  which  Venezuela  has  been  driven  to 
oppose  by  all  possible  means  the  dispos- 
session of  a  part  of  her  territory,  for  by 
disregarding  her  just  representation  to 
put  an  end  to  this  violent  state  of  affairs 
through  the  decision  of  arbiters,  her 
majesty's  government  ignores  her  rights 
and  imposes  upon  her  the  painful  though 
peremptory  duty  of  providing  for  her 
own  legitimate  defense." 


18 


THE   CORRESPONDENCE. 


WE    COULD   NOT    IGNORE    IT. 

To  the  territorial  controversy  be- 
tween Great  Britain  and  the  republic  of 
Venezuela,  thus  briefly  outlined,  the 
United  States  has  not  been  and,  indeed, 
in  view  of  its  traditional  policy,  could 
not  be  indifferent.  The  note  to  the  Brit- 
ish foreign  office,  by  which  Venezuela 
opened  negotiations  in  1870,  was  at  once 
communicated  to  this  government.  In 
.la nuary,  1881,  a  letter  of  the  Venezuelan 
minister  at  Washington,  respecting  cer- 
tain alleged  demonstrations  at  the 
mouth  of  the  Orinoco,  was  thus  answered 
by  Mr.  Evarts,  then  secretary  of  state: 

In  the  February  following  Mr.  Evarts 
wrote  again  on  the  same  subject  as  fol- 
lows: 

In  reply  I  have  to  inform  you  that  in  view 
of  the  deep  interest  which  the  government  of 
the  United  States  takes  in  all  transactions 
tending  to  attempted  encoachment  of  for- 
eign powers  upon  the  territory  of  any  of  the 
republics  of  this  continent,  this  govern- 
ment could  not  look  with  indifference  to 
the  forcible  acquisition  of  such  territory  by 
England  if  the  mission  of  the  vessels  now 
at  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco  should  be 
found  to  be  for  that  end.  This  government 
awaits,  therefore,  with  natural  concern  the 
more  particular  statement  promised  by  the 
government  of  Venezuela,  which  it  hopes 
will  not  long  be  delayed. 

Referring  to  your  note  of  December  21  last 
touching  the  operations  of  certain  British 
war  vessels  in  and  near  the  mouth  of  the 
Orinoco  river,  and  to  my  reply  thereto  of 
the  31st  ultimo,  as  well  as  to  the  recent  oc- 
casions in  which  the  subject  has  been  men- 
tioned in  our  conferences  concerning  the 
business  of  your  mission,  I  take  it  to  be 
fitting  now,  at  the  closing  incumbency  of 
the  office  I  hold,  to  advert  to  the  interest 
with  which  the  government  of  the  United 
States  cannot  fail  to  regard  any  such  pur- 
pose with  respect  to  the  control  of  American 
territory  as  is  stated  to  be  contemplated  by 
the  government  of  Great  Britain  and  to 
express  my  regret  that  the  further  infor- 
mation promised  in  your  note  with  regard 
to  such  designs  had  not  reached  me  in  sea- 
son to  receive  the  attention  which,  notwith- 
standing the  severe  pressure  of  public  busi- 
ness at  the  end  of  an  administrative  term. 
I  should  have  taken  pleasure  in  bestowing 
upon  it.  I  doubt  not,  however,  that  your 
representations  in  fulfillment  of  the  awaited 
additional  orders  of  your  government  will 
have  like  earnest  and  solicitous  considera- 
tion at  the  hands  of  my  successor. 

SECRETARY  EVARTS'  EFFORTS. 

In  November,  1882,  the  then  state  of 
negotiations  with  Great  Britain,  to- 
gether with  a  copy  of  an  intended  note 
suggesting  recourse  to  arbitration,  was 
communicated  to  the  secretary  of  state 
by  the  president  of  Venezuela,  with  the 
expression  of  the  hope  that  the  United 
States  would  give  him  its  opinion  and 
advice  and  such  support  as  it  deemed 
possible  to  offer  Venezuela  in  order  that 
justice  should  be  done  her. 


FRELINGHUYSEN'S      SUGGESTIONS. 
Mr.    Frelinghuyseu     replied    in    a  dis- 
patch  to   the    United   States   minister  at 
Caracas  as  follows: 

This  government  has  already  expressed 
its  view  that  arbitration  of  such  dispute  is 
a  convenient  resort  in  the  case  of  failure  to 
come  to  a  mutual  understanding,  and  inti- 
mated its  willingness,  if  Venezuela  should 
so  desire,  to  propose  to  Great  Britain  such 
a  mode  of  settlement.  It  is  felt  that  the 
tender  of  good  offices  would  not  be  so  profit- 
able if  the  United  States  were  to  approach 
Great  Britain  as  the  advocate  of  any  pre- 
judged solution  in  favor  of  Venezuela.  So 
far  as  the  United  States  can  counsel  and 
assist  Venezuela  it  believes  it  best  to  con- 
fine its  reply  to  the  renewal  of  the  sugges- 
tion, the  more  easily  made  since  it  appears 
from  the  instruction  sent  by  Senor  Seijas 
to  the  Venezuelan  minister  in  London  on  the 
same  15th  of  July,  1882,  that  the  president 
of  Venezuela  proposed  to  the  British  gov- 
ernment the  submission  of  the  dispute  to 
arbitration  by  a  third  power. 

You  will  take  an  early  occasion  to  pre- 
sent the  foregoing  considerations  to  Senor 
Seijas,  saying  to  him  that,  while  trusting 
that  the  direct  proposal  for  arbitration  al- 
ready made  to  Great  Britain  may  bear  good 
fruit  (if,  indeed,  it  has  not  already  done  so 
by  its  acceptance  in  principle),  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  will  cheerfully 
lend  any  needful  aid  to  press  upon  Great 
Britain  in  a  friendly  way  the  proposition 
so  made;  and  at  the  same  time  you  will  say 
to  Senor  Seijas  (in  personal  conference  and 
not  with  the  formality  of  a  written  com- 
munication) that  the  United  States,  while 
advocating  strongly  the  recourse  of  arbitra- 
tion for  the  adjustment  of  international  dis- 
putes affecting  the  state  of  America,  does 
not  seek  to  put  itself  forward  as  their  ar- 
biter; that,  viewing  all  such  questions  im- 
partially and  with  no  intent  or  desire  to 
prejudice  their  merits,  the  United  States 
will  not  refuse  its  arbitration  if  asked  by 
both  parties,  and  that,  regarding  all  such 
questions  as  are  essentially  and  distinctively 
American,  the  United  States  would  always 
prefer  to  see  such  contention  adjusted 
through  the  arbitrament  of  an  American 
rather  than  a  European  power. 

BLANCO'S  VISIT  TO  LONDON. 
In  1884  General  Guzman  Blanco,  the 
Venezuelan  minister  to  England,  ap- 
pointed with  special  reference  to  pend- 
ing negotiations  for  a  general  treaty  will i 
Great  Britain,  visited  Washington  on  his 
way  to  London,  and  after  several  con- 
ferences with  the  secretary  of  state  re- 
specting the  objects  of  his  mission,  was 
thus  commended  to  the  good  offices  of 
Mr.  Lowell,  our  minister  at  St.  James: 

It  will  necessarily  be  somewhat  within 
your  discretion  how  far  your  good  offices 
may  be  profitably  employed  with  her  maj- 
esty's government  to  these  ends,  and  at  any 
rate  you  may  take  proper  occasion  to  le't 
Lord  Granville  know  that  we  are  not  with- 
out concern  as  to  whatever  may  affect  the 
interests  of  a  sister  republic  of  the  Ameri- 
can continent,  or  its  position  in  the  family 
of  nations.  If  General  Guzman  should  apply 
to  you  for  advice  or  assistance  in  realizing 
the  purposes  of  his  mission,  you  will  show 
him  proper  consideration,  and,  without 


THE   CORRESPONDENCE. 


committing  ihc  United  States  to  any  deter- 
minate political  solution,  you  will  endeavor- 
to  carry  out  the  views  of  this  instruction. 

The  progress  of  General  Guzman's 
negotiations  did  not  fail  to  be  observed 
by  tli is  government,  and  in  December. 
188(5,  with  a  view  to  preventing-  the  rup- 
ture of  diplomatic  relations— which  actu- 
ally took  place  in  February  following— 
the  then  secretary  of  state,  Mr.  Bayard, 
instructed  our  minister  to  Great  Britain 
to  tender  the  arbitration  of  the  United 
States  in  the  following  terms: 

It  does  not  appear  that  at  any  time  here- 
tofore the  good  offices  of  this  government 
have  been  actually  tendered  to  avert  a  rup- 
ture between  Great  Britain  and  Venezuela. 
As  intimated  in  my  No.  58,  our  inaction  in 
this  regard  would  seem  to  be  due  to  the  re- 
luctance of  Venezuela  to  have  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  take  any 
steps  having  relation  to  the  action  or 
that  would  in  appearance  even,  prejudice 
the  resort  to  further  arbitration  or 
mediation  which  Venezuela  desired.  Never- 
theless, the  records  abundantly  testify  our 
friendly  concern  in  the  adjustment  of  the 
dispute;  and  the  intelligence  now  received 
warrants  me  in  tendering  through  you  to 
her  majesty's  government  the  good  offices 
of  the  United  States  to  promote  an  amic- 
able settlement  of  the  respective  claims  of 
Great  Britain  and  Venezuela  in  the  prem- 
ise*. As  proof  of  the  impartiality  with 
which  we  view  the  question,  we  offer  our 
arbitration,  if  acceptable,  to  both  countries. 
We  do  this  with  the  less  hesitancy  as  the 
dispute  turns  upon  simple  and  readily  as- 
certainable  historical  facts. 

Her  majesty's  government  will  readily 
understand  that  this  attitude  of  friendly 
neutrality  and  entire  impartiality  touching 
the  merits  of  the  controversy,  consisting 
wholly  in  a  difference  of  facts  between  pur 
friends  and  neighbors,  is  entirely  consist- 
ent and  compatible  with  the  sense  of  re- 
sponsibility that  rests  upon  the  United 
States  in  relation  to  the  South  American 
republics  The  doctrines  we  announced  two 
generations  ago,  at  the  instance  and  with 
the  moral  support  and  approval  of  the  Brit- 
ish government,  have  lost  none  of  then- 
force  of  importance  in  the  progress  of  time, 
and  the  governments  of  Great  Britain  and 
the  United  States  are  equally  interested  in 
conserving  a  status  the  wisdom  of  which 
has  been  demonstrated  by  the  experience  of 
more  than  half  a  century. 

It  is  proper,  therefore,  that  you  should 
convev  to  Lord  Iddesleigh,  in  such  suffi- 
ciently guarded  terms  as  your  discretion 
may  dictate,  the  satisfaction  that  would  be 
felt  by  the  government  of  the  United  States 
in  perceiving  that  its  wishes  in  this  regard 
were  permitted  to  have  influence  with  her 
.  majesty's  government. 

ENGLAND    STILL   REFUSES. 

'Phis  offer  of  mediation  was  declined 
by  Great  Britain,  with  the  statement 
that  a  similar  offer  had  already  been 
received  from  another  quarter,  and  that 
the  queen's  government  were  still  not 
without  hope  of  a  settlement  by  direct 
diplomatic  negotiations. 

In  February-  1SSS.  having  been  in- 
formed,  that  the  governor  of  British 


Guiana  had  by  formal  decree  laid  claim 
to  the  territory  traversed  by  Hie  route 
of  a  proposed  railway  from  Ciudad  Boli- 
var to  Guacipati,  Mr.  Bayard  addressed 
a  note  to  our  minister  to  England,  from 
which  the  following  extracts  are  taken: 

The  claim  now  stated  to  have  been  put 
forth  by  the  authorities  of  British  Guiana 
necessarily  gives  rise  to  grave  disquietude 
and  creates  an  apprehension  that  the  terri- 
torial claim  does  not  follow  historical  tra- 
ditions or  evidence,  but  is  apparently  in- 
definite. At  no  time  hitherto  does  it  appeal- 
that  the  district  of  which  Guacipati  is  tin- 
center  has  been  claimed  as  British  terri- 
tory or  that  such  jurisdiction  has  ever  been 
asserted  over  its  inhabitants,  and  if  the 
reported  decree  of  the  governor  of  British 
Guiana  be  indeed  genuine  it  is  not  appar- 
ent how  any  line  of  railway  from  Ciudad 
Bolivar  to  Guacipati  could  enter  or  tra- 
verse that  territory  within  the  control  of 
Great  Britain. 

It  is  true  that  the  line  claimed  by  Great 
Britain  as  the  western  boundary  of  British 
Guiana  is  uncertain  and  vague.  It  is  only 
necessary  to  examine  the  British  Colonial 
Office  "List  for  a  few  years  back  to  perceive 
this.  In  the  issue  for  1877,  for  instance,  the 
line  runs  nearly  southwardly  from  the 
mouth  of  the  Amacuro  to  the  junction  of 
the  Cotinga  and  Takutu  rivers.  In  the  issue 
of  1887,  ten  years  later,  it  makes  a  wide  de- 
tour to  the  westward,  following  the  Yuru- 
ari.  Guacipati  lies  considerably  to  the  west- 
ward of  the  line  officially  claimed  in  1887, 
and  it  may  perhaps  be  instructive  to  com- 
pare with  it  the  map  which  doubtless  will 
be  found  in  the  Colonial  Office  List  for  the 
present  year. 

It  might  be  well  for  you  to  express  anew 
to  Lord  Salisbury  the  great  gratification  it 
would  afford  this  government  to  see  the 
Venezuelan  disputes  amicably  and  honor- 
ably settled  by  arbitration  or  otherwise,  and 
our  readiness  to  do  anything  we  properly 
can  to  assist  to  that  end.  In  the  course  of 
your  conversation  you  may  refer  to  the 
publication  in  the  London  Financier  of 
January  24  (a  copy  of  which  you  can  pro- 
cure and  exhibit  to  Lord  Salisbury),  and  ex- 
press apprehension  lest  the  widening  of  pre- 
tensions of  British  Guiana  to  possess  terri- 
tory over  which  Venezuela's  jurisdiction 
has  never  heretofore  been  disputed,  may 
not  diminish  the  chances  for  a  practical  set- 
tlement. 

If,  indeed,  it  should  appear  that  there  is 
no  fixed  limit  to  the  British  boundary  claim, 
our  good  disposition  to  aid  in  a  settlement 
might  not  only  be  defeated,  but  be  obliged 
to  give  place  to  a  feeling  of  grave  concern. 

ELAINE  ALSO  FAILED. 

In  1889  information  having  been  re- 
ceived that  Barima.  at  the  mouth  of  the 
Orrinno.  had  been  declared  a  British 
port.  Mr.  Blaine,  then  secretary  of  state. 
authorized  Mr.  White  to  confer  with 
Lord  Salisbury  for  the  re-establishment 
of  diplomatic  relations  between  Great 
Britain  and  Venezuela  on  the  basis  of  a 
temporary  restoration  of  the  status  quo. 
and  on  May  1  and  May  6.  1890.  sent  the 
following  telegrams  to  our  minister  to 
England.  Mr.  Lincoln; 


THE   CORRESPONDENCE. 


May,   1,  1890. 

Mr.  Lincoln  is  instructed  to  use  his  good 
offices  with  Lord  Salisbury  to  bring  about 
the  resumption  of  diplomatic  intercourse  be- 
tween Great  Britain  and  Venezuela  as  a 
preliminary  step  towards  the  settlement'  of 
the  boundary  dispute  by  arbitration.  The 
joint  proposals  of  Great  Britain  and  the 
United  States  towards  Portugal,  which  have 
just  been  brought  about,  would  seem  to 
make  the  present  time  propitious  for  sub- 
mitting this  question  to  the  international 
arbitration.  He  is  requested  to  propose  to 
Lord  Salisbury,  with  a  view  to  an  accom- 
modation, that  an  informal  conference  be 
had  in  Washington  or  in  London  of  repre- 
sentatives of  three  powers.  In  such  confer- 
ence the  position  of  the  United  States  is 
one  solely  of  impartial  friendship  towards 
both  litigants. 

May  6,  1890. 

It  is,  nevertheless,  desired  that  you  shall 
do  all  you  can  consistently  with  our  attitude 
of  impartial  friendship  to  induce  some  ac- 
cord between  the  contestants  by  which  the 
merits  of  the  controversy  may  be  fairly  as- 
certained and  the  rights  of  each  party  justly 
confirmed.  The  neutral  position  of  this  gov- 
ernment does  not  comport  with  any  expres- 
sion of  opinion  on  the  part  of  this  depart- 
ment as  to  what  these  rights  are,  but  it  is 
confident  that  the  shifting  feeling  on  which 
the  British  boundary  question  has  rested 
for  several  years  past  is  art  obstacle  to 
such  a  correct  appreciation  of  the  nature 
and  grounds  of  her  claim  as  would  alone 
warrant  the  formation  of  any  opinion. 

VENEZUELA   SENDS   AN    ENVOY. 

In  the  course  of  the  same  year.  1890, 
Venezuela  sent  to  London  a  special  en- 
voy to  bring  about  the  resumption  of 
diplomatic  relations  with  Great  Britain 
through  the  good  offices  of  the  United 
States  minister.  But  the  mission  failed 
because  a  condition  of  such  resumption, 
steadily  adhered  to  by  Venezuela,  was 
the  reference  of  the  boundary  dispute 
to  arbitration.  Since  the  close  of  .the  ne- 
gotiations initiated  by  Senor  Michelena 
in  1893,  Venezuela  has  repeatedly  brought 
the  controversy  to  the  notice  of  the 
United  States;  has  insisted  upon  its  im- 
portance to  the  United  States  as  well  as 
to  Venezuela;  has  represented  it  to  have 
reached  an  acute  stage  making  the  limit 
action  by  the  United  States  imperative, 
and  has  not  ceased  to  solicit  the  services 
and  support  of  the  United  States  in  aid 
of  its  final  adjustment.  These  appeals 
have  not  been  received  with  indifference, 
and  our  ambassador  to  Great  Britain 
has  been  uniformly  instructed  to  exert 
all  his  influence  in  the  direction  of  the  re- 
est;iblishment  of  diplomatic  relations  be- 
tween Great  Britain  and  Venezuela  and 
in  favor  of  arbitration  of  the  boundary 
controversy. 

The  secretary  of  state,  in  a  communi- 
cation to  Mr.  Bayard,  bearing  date  July 
13,  1894,  used  the  following  language: 


The  president  is  inspired  by  a  desire  for  a 
peaceable  and  honorable  settlement  of  the 
existing  difficulties  between  an  American 
state  and  a  powerful  transatlantic  nation, 
and  would  be  glad  to  see  the  re-establish- 
ment of  such  diplomatic  relations  between 
them  as  would  promote  that  end.  I  can  dis- 
cern but  two  equitable  solutions  of  the  pres- 
ent controversy.  One  is  the  arbitral  deter- 
mination of  the  rights  of  the  disputants  as 
the  respective  successors  to  the  historical 
rights  of  Holland  and  Spain  over  the 
region  in  question.  The  other  is  to  create  a 
new  boundary  line  in  accordance  with  the 
dictates  of  mutual  expediency  and  consider- 
ation. The  two  governments  have  so  far 
been  unable  to  agree  on  a  conventional 
line.  The  consistent  and  conspicuous  advo- 
cacy by  the  United  States  and  England  of 
the  principle  of  arbitration,  and  their  re- 
course thereto  in  settlement  of  important 
questions  arising  between  them,  makes  such 
a  mode  of  adjustment  especially  appropriate 
in  the  present  instance,  and  this  govern- 
ment will  gladly  do  what  it  can  to  further 
a  determination  in  that  sense. 

Subsequent  communications  to  Mr. 
Bayard  direct  him  to  ascertain  whether 
a  minister  from  Venezuela  would  be  re- 
ceived by  Great  Britain. 

CLEVELAND  LAST  DECEMBER. 

In  the  annual  message  to  Congress 
of  December  3  last,  the  president  used 
the  following  language: 

The  boundary  of  British  Guiana  still  re- 
mains in  dispute  between  Great  Britain  and 
Venezuela.  Believing  that  its  early  settle- 
ment, on  some  just  basis  alike  honorable  to 
both  parties,  is  in  the  line  of  our  established 
policy  to  remove  from  this  hemisphere  all 
causes  of  difference  with  powers  beyond  the 
sea,  I  shall  renew  the  efforts  heretofore 
made  to  bring  about  a  restoration  of  diplo- 
matic relations  between  the  disputants  and 
to  induce  a  reference  to  arbitration,  a  resort 
which  Great  Britain  so  conspicuously  favors 
in  principle  and  respects  in  practice,  and 
which  is  earnestly  sought  by  her  weaker 
adversary. 

And  February  22,  1895.  a  joint  reac- 
tion of  Congress  declared: 

That  the  president's  suggestion  that  Great 
Britain  and  Venezuela  refer  their  dispute 
as  to  boundaries  to  friendly  arbitration  be 
earnestly  recommended  to  the  favorable 
consideration  of  both  parties  in  interest. 

The  important  features  of  the  exist- 
ing situation,  as  shown  by  the  forego- 
ing, may  be  briefly  stated.  The  title  to 
territory  of  indefinite  but  confessedly 
very  large  extent  is  in  dispute  between 
Great  Britain  on  the  one  hand  and  the 
South  American  republic  of  Venezuela 
on  the  other.  The  disparity  in  the 
strength  of  the  claimants  is  such  thai- 
Venezuela  can  hope  to  establish  her 
claim  only  through  peaceful  methods- 
through  an  agreement  with  her  adver- 
sary, either  upon  the  subject  itself  or 
upon  an  arbitration.  The  controversy, 
with  varying  claims  on  the  part  of  Great 
Britain,  has  existed  for  more  than  half 
a  century,  during  which  period  many 


THE   C'ORRESPON  HENCE. 


21 


earnest  and  persistent  efforts  of  Vene- 
zuela to  establish  a  boundary  by  agree- 
ment have  proved  unsuccessful.  The 
futility  of  the  endeavor  to  obtain  a  con- 
ventional line  being  recognized,  Vene- 
zuela Tor  a  quarter  of  a  century  has 
asked  and  striven  for  arbitration.  Great 
Britain,  however,  has  always  and  con- 
tinuously refused  to  arbitrate,  except 
upon  the  condition  of  a  renunciation  of 
a  large  part  of  the  Venezuelan  claim 
and  of  a  concession  to  herself  of  a  large 
share  of  the  territory  in  controversy. 

By  the  frequent  interposition  of  its 
good  offices  at  the  instance  of  Venezuela, 
by  constantly  urging  and  promoting  the 
restoration  of  diplomatic  relations  be- 
tween the  two  countries  by  pressing  for 
arbitration  of  the  disputed  boundary, 
by  offering  to  act  as  arbitrator,  by  ex- 
pressing its  grave  concern  whenever 
new  alleged  instances  of  British  aggres- 
sion upon  Venezuelan  territory  have 
been  brought  to  its  notice,  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  has  made  it 
dear  to  Great  Britain  and  to  the  world 
that  the  controversy  is  one  in  which  its 
honor  and  interests  are  involved,  and 
the  continuance  of  which  it  cannot  re- 
gard with  indifference. 

AMERICA'S   INTEREST. 

The  accuracy  of  the  foregoing  analy- 
sis of  the  existing  status  cannot,  it  is 
believed,  be  challenged.  It  shows  that 
status  to  be  such  that  those  charged  with 
the  interests  of  the  United  States  are 
now  forced  to  determine  exactly  what 
those  interests  are  and  what  course  of 
action  they  require.  It  compels  them  to 
decide  to  what  extent,  if  any,  the  United 
States  may  and  should  intervene  in  a 
controversy  between  and  primarily  con- 
cerning only  Great  Britain  and  Vene- 
zuela, and  to  see  how  far  it  is  bound  to 
see  that  the  integrity  of  Venezuelan  ter- 
ritory is  not  impaired  by  the  pretensions 
of  its  powerful  antagonist. 

Are  any  such  right  and  duty  de- 
volved upon  the  United  States?  If  not, 
the  United  States  has  already  done  all, 
if  not  more  than  all,  that  a  purely  senti- 
mental interest  in  the  affairs  of  the  two 
countries  justifies,  and  to  push  its  inter- 
position farther  would  be  unbecoming 
and  undignified,  and  might  well  subject 
it  to  the  charge  of  impertinent  interfer- 
ence with  affairs  with  which  it  has  no 
rightful  concern.  On  the  other  hand,  it' 
anv  such  right  and  duty  exist,  their  due 
exercise  and  discharge  will  not  permit 
of  any  action  that  shall  not  be  efficient 
and  that,  it'  the  power  of  the  United 


States  is  adequate,  shall  not  result  in  the 
accomplishment  of  the  end  in  view.  The 
question  thus  presented,  as  matter  of 
principle,  and  regard  being  had  to  the 
settled  national  policy,  does  not  seem 
difficult  of  solution.  Let  such  momentous 
practical  consequences  depend  on  its 
determination  that  it  should  be  carefully 
considered  and  that  the  grounds  of  the 
conclusion  arrived  at  should  be  fully  and 
frankly  stated. 

That  there  are  circumstances  under 
which  a  nation  may  justly  interpose  in 
a  controversy  to  which  two  or  more 
other  nations  are  the  direct  and  imme- 
diate parties,  is  an  admitted  canon  of 
international  law.  The  doctrine  is  or- 
dinarily expressed  in  terms  of  the  most 
general  character,  and  is,  perhaps,  in- 
capable of  more  specific  statement.  It 
is  declared  in  substance  that  a  nation 
may  avail  itself  of  this  right  whenever 
what  is  done  or  proposed  by  any  of  the 
parties  primarily  concerned  is  a  serious 
and  direct  menace  to  its  own  integrity, 
tranquility  or  welfare.  The  propriety 
of  the  rule,  when  applied  in  good  faith, 
will  not  be  questioned  in  any  quarter. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  an  inevitable 
though  unfortunate  consequence  of  the 
wide  scope  of  the  rule  that  it  has  only 
too  often  been  made  a  cloak  for  schemes 
of  wanton  spoliation  and  aggrandize- 
ment. 

WASHINGTON'S  FAREWELL. 

We  are  concerned  at  this  time,  how- 
ever, not  so  much  with  the  general  rule 
as  with  a  form  of  it  which  is  peculiarly 
and  distinctively  American.  Washing- 
ton, in  the  solemn  admonitions  of  his 
farewell  address,  explicitly  warned  his 
countrymen  against  entanglements  with 
the  politics  or  the  controversies  of  Euro- 
pean powers.  "Europe,"  he  said,  "has  a 
set  of  primary  interests  which  to  us  have 
none — or  a  very  remote — relation.  Hence 
she  must  be  engaged  in  frequent  contro- 
versies, the  causes  of  which  are  essen- 
tially foreign  to  our  concerns.  Hence. 
therefore,  it  must  be  unwise  in  us  to 
implicate  ourselves  by  artificial  ties  in 
the  ordinary  vicissitudes  of  her  politics 
or  the  ordinary  combinations  and  col- 
lisions of  her  friendships  or  enmities. 
Our  detached  and  distant  situation  in- 
vites and  enables  us  to  pursue  a  differ- 
ent course." 

During  the  administration  of  Presi- 
dent Monroe  this  doctrine  of  the  fare- 
well address  was  first  considered  in  all 
its  aspects  and  with  n  view  to  all  its 
practical  consequences.  The  farewell  ad- 


22 


THE   CORRESPONDENCE. 


dress,  while  it  took  America  out  of  the 
field  of  European  politics,  was  silent  as 
to  the  part  Europe  might  be  permitted 
to  play  in  America.  Doubtless  it  was 
thought  the  latest  addition  to  the  fam- 
ily of  nations  should  not  make  haste  to 
prescribe  rules  for  the  guidance  of  older 
members,  and  the  expediency  and  pro- 
priety of  serving  the  powers  of  Europe 
with  notice  of  a  complete  and  distinctive 
American  policy,  excluding  them  from 
interference  with  American  political 
affairs,  might  well  seem  dubious  to  a 
generation  to  whom  the  French  alli- 
ance, with  its  manifold  advantage  to  the 
cause  of  American  independence  was 
fresh  in  mind. 

TWENTY  YEARS  LATER. 

Twenty  years  later,  however,  the  situ- 
ation had  changed.  The  lately  born  na- 
tion had  greatly  increased  in  power  and 
resources,  had  demonstrated  its  strength 
on  land  and  sea,  as  well  in  the  conflicts 
of  arms  as  in  the  pursuits  of  peace,  and 
had  begun  to  realize  the  commanding  po- 
sition on  this  continent  which  the  char- 
acter of  its  people,  their  free  institutions, 
and  their  remoteness  from  the  chief 
scene  of  European  contentions  combined 
to  give  it.  The  Monroe  administration, 
therefore,  did  not  hesitate  to  accept  and 
apply  the  logic  of  the  farewell  address, 
by  declaring  in  effect  that  American  uon 
intervention  in  European  affairs  neces- 
sarily implied  and  meant  European  non- 
intervention in  American  affairs.  Con- 
ceiving, unquestionably,  that  complete 
European  non-interference  in  American 
concerns  wrould  be  cheaply  purchased  by 
complete  American  non-interference  in 
European  concerns,  President  Monroe, 
in  the  celebrated  message  of  December 
2,  1823,  used  the  following  language: 

In  the  wars  of  the  European  powers  in 
matters  relating  to  themselves  we  have 
never  taken  any  part,  nor  does  it  comport 
with  our  policy  to  do  so.  It  is  only  when 
our  rights  are  invaded  or  seriously  menaced 
that  we  resent  injuries  or  make  prepara- 
tions for  our  defense.  With  the  movements 
in  this  hemisphere  we  are,  of  necessity, 
more  immediately  connected,  and  by  causes 
which  must  be  obvious  to  all  enlightened 
and  impartial  observers.  The  political  sys- 
tem of  the  allied  powers  is  essentially  dif- 
ferent in  this  respect  from  that  of  America. 
This  difference  proceeds  from  that  which 
exists  in  their  respective  governments;  and 
to  the  defense  of  our  own,  which  has  been 
achieved  by  the  loss  of  so  much  blood  and 
treasure  and  matured  by  the  wisdom  of 
our  most  enlightened  citizens,  and  under 
which  we  have  enjoyed  unexampled  felicity, 
this  whole  nation  is  devoted.  We  owe  it. 
therefore,  to  candor  and  to  the  amicable 
relations  existing  between  the  United  States 
and  these  powers  to  declare  that  we  should 
consider  any  attempt  on  their  part  to  ex- 


tend their  system  to  any  portion  of  this 
hemisphere  as  dangerous  to  our  peace  and 
safety. 

With  the  existing  colonies  or  dependencies 
of  any  European  power  we  have  not  inter- 
fered and  shall  not  interfere,  but  with  the 
governments  who  have  declared  their  inde- 
pendence and  maintained  it,  and  whose  in- 
dependence we  have,  on  great  consideration 
and  on  just  principles,  acknowledged,  we 
could  not  view  any  interposition  for  the  pur- 
pose of  oppressing  them,  or  controlling  in 
any  other  manner  their  destiny  by  any 
European  power  in  any  other  light  than  as 
the  manifestation  of  an  unfriendly  disposi- 
tion towards  the  United  States. 

Our  policy  in  regard  to  Europe,  which 
was  adopted  at  an  early  stage  of  the  wars 
which  have  so  long  agitated  that  quarter  of 
the  globe,  nevertheless  remains  the  same, 
which  is,  not  to  interfere  in  the  internal  con- 
cerns of  any  of  its  powers;  to  consider  the 
government  de  facto  as  the  legitimate  gov- 
ernment for  us;  to  cultivate  friendly  rela- 
tions with  it,  and  to  preserve  those  rela- 
tions by  a  frank,  firm  and  manly  policy, 
meeting,  in  all  instances,  the  just  claims 
of  every  power,  submitting  to  injuries  from 
none. 

But  in  regard  to  these  continents  circum- 
stances are  eminently  and  conspicuously  dif- 
ferent. It  is  impossible  that  the  allied 
powers  should  extend  their  political  sys- 
tem to  any  portion  of  either  continent  with- 
out endangering  our  peace  and  happiness, 
nor  can  any  one  believe  that  our  southern 
brethren,  if  left  to  themselves,  would  adopt 
it  of  their  own  accord.  It  is  equally  impos- 
sible, therefore,  that  we  should  behold  such 
interposition  in  any  form  with  indifference. 

SERVED  NOTICE  ON  EUROPE. 

The  Monroe  administration.  how- 
ever, did  not  content  itself  with  formu- 
lating a  correct  rule  for  the  regulation  «>f 
the  relations  between  Europe  and  Amer- 
ica. It  aimed  at  also  securing  the  prac- 
tical benefits  to  result  from  the  applica- 
tion of  the  rule.  Hence  the  message  jusi 
quoted  declared  that  the  American  con- 
tinents were  fully  occupied  and  were 
not  the  subjects  for  future  colonization 
by  European  powers.  To  this  spirit  and 
this  purpose,  also,  are  to  be  attributed 
the  passages  of  the  same  message  which 
treat  any  infringement  of  the  rule 
against  interference  in  American  affairs 
on  the  part  of  the  powers  of  Europe  as  an 
act  of  unfriendliness  to  the  United 
States.  It  was  realized  that  it  was  futile 
to  lay  down  such  a  rule  unless  its  ob- 
servance could  be  enforced.  It  was  mani- 
fest that  the  United  States  was  the  only 
power  in  this  hemisphere  capable  of  en- 
forcing it.  It  was,  therefore,  courage- 
ously declared  not  merely  that  Europe 
ought  not  to  interfere  in  American 
affairs,  but  that  any  European  power 
doing  so  would  be  regarded  as  antagon- 
izing the  interests  and  inviting  the  o] (po- 
sition of  the  United  States. 

That  America  is  in  no  part  open  to 
colonization,  though  the  proposition  was 


THE   CORRESPONDENCE. 


riot  universally  admitted  at  the  lime  of 
its  first  enunciation,  has  long  been  uni- 
versally conceded.  We  are  now  con- 
cerned, therefore,  only  with  that  other 
practical  application  of  the  Monroe  doc- 
nine,  the  disregard  of  which  by  a  Euro- 
pean power  is  to  be  deemed  an  act  of 
mi  friendliness  towards  the  United  States. 
The  precise  scope  and  limitations  of  this 
rule  cannot  be  too  clearly  apprehended. 
It  does  not  establish  any  general  protec- 
torate by  the  United  States  over  other 
American  states.  It  does  not  relieve  anj 
American  state  from  its  obligations  as 
fixed  by  international  law,  nor  prevent 
any  European  power  directly  interested 
I' rom  enforcing  such  obligations  or  from 
inflicting  merited,  punishment  for  the 
hreach  of  them. 

It  does  not  contemplate  any  interfer- 
ence iii  the  internal  affairs  of  any  Ameri- 
can state  or  in  the  relations  between  it 
and  other  American  states.  It  does  not 
.justify  any  attempt  on  our  part  to 
change  the  established  form  of  govern- 
ment of  any  American  state  or  to  pre- 
veut  the  people  of  such  state  from  alter- 
ing that  form  according  to  their  own 
will  and  pleasure.  The  rule  in  question 
has  but  a  single  purpose  and  object.  It 
is  that  no  European  power  or  combina- 
tion of  European  powers  shall  forcibly 
deprive  an  American  state  of  the  right 
and  power  of  self-government  and  of 
shaping  for  itself  its  own  political  for- 
tunes and  destinies. 

ACCEPTED  LAW  OF  THE  COUNTRY. 

That  the  rule  thus  defined  has  been 
the  accepted  public  law  of  this  country 
ever  since  its  promulgation  cannot  fairly 
be  denied.  Its  pronouncement  by  the 
Monroe  administration  at  that  particu- 
lar time  was  unquestionably  due  to  the 
inspiration  of  Great  Britain,  who  at  once 
gave  it  an  open  and  unqualified  adhes- 
ion, which  has  never  been  withdrawn. 
But  the  rule  was  decided  upon  and  for- 
mulated by  the  Monroe  administration 
as  a  distinctively  American  doctrine,  of 
great  import  to  the  safety  and  welfare 
of  the  United  States,  after  the  most  care- 
ful consideration  by  a  cabinet  which 
numbered  among  its  members  John 
Quincy  Adams,  Calhonn,  Crawford  and 
Wirt,  and  which,  before  acting,  took  both 
Jefferson  and  Madison  into  its  coun- 
sels. Its  promulgation  was  received  with 
acclaim  by  the  entire  people  of  the  coun- 
try, irrespective  of  party. 

Three  years  after  Webster  declared 
that  the  doctrine  involved  the  honor  of 
the  country.  "I  look  upon  it,"  he  said, 


"as  part  of  its  treasures  of  reputation. 
and  for  one  i  intend  to  guard  it."  And, 
he  added,  "I  look  on  the  message  of  De- 
cember, 1823,  as  forming  a  bright  page 
in  our  history.  I  will  help  neither  to 
erase  it  nor  to  tear  it  out;  nor  shall  it 
be  by  any  act  of  mine  blurred  or  blotted. 
It  did  honor  to  the  sagacity  of  the  gov- 
ernment, and  1  will  not  diminish  that, 
honor." 

Though  the  rule  thus  highly  eulogized 
by  Webster  has  never  been  formally  af- 
firmed by  Congress,  the  House  in  18(54 
declared  against  the  Mexican  monarchy 
sought  to  be  set  up  by  the  French  as  not 
in  accord  with  the  policy  of  the  United 
States,  and  in  1889  the  Senate  expressed 
its  disapproval  of  the  connection  of  any 
European  power  with  a  canal  across  the 
Isthmus  of  Darien  or  Central  America. 
It  is  manifest  that  if  a  rule  has  been 
openly  and  uniformly  declared  and  acted 
upon  by  the  executive  branch  of  the  gov- 
ernment for  more  than  seventy  years 
without  express  repudiation  by  Congress 
it  must  be  conclusively  presumed  to  have 
its  sanction.  Yet  it  is  certainly  no  more 
than  the  exact  truth  to  say  that  every 
administration  since  President  Monroe's 
has  had  occasion,  and  sometimes  more 
occasions  than  one,  to  examine  and  con- 
sider the  Monroe  doctrine,  and  has  in 
each  instance  given  it  emphatic  endorse- 
ment. Presidents  have  dwelt  upon  it  in 
messages  to  Congress,  and  secretaries  of 
state  have  time  after  time  made  it  Hie 
theme  of  diplomatic  representation. 

PRACTICAL  RESULTS. 
Nor,  if  the  practical  results  of  the  rule 
be  sought  for,  is  the  record  either  meagre 
or  obscure.  Its  first  and  immediate  ef- 
fect was  indeed  more  momentous  and 
far-reaching.  It  was  the  controlling  fac- 
tor in  the  emancipation  of  South  Amer- 
ica, and  to  it  the  independent  states 
which  now  divide  that  region  between 
them  are  largely  indebted  for  their  very 
existence.  Since  then  the  most  striking 
single  achievement  to  be  credited  to  the 
rule  is  the  evacuation  of  Mexico  by  the 
French  upon  the  termination  of  the  civil 
war.  But  we  are  also  indebted  to  it  for 
the  provisions  of  the  Claytou-Bulwer 
treaty,  which  both  neutralized  any  inter- 
oceanic;  canal  across  Central  America 
and  expressly  excluded  Great  Britain 
from  occupying  or  exercising  any  domin- 
ion over  any  part  of  Central  America.  It 
has  been  used  in  the  case  of  Cuba,  as  if 
justifying  the  position  that,  while  the 
sovereignty  of  Spain  will  be  respected, 
the  island  will  not  be  permitted  to  be- 


24 


THE  CORRESPONDENCE. 


come  the  possession  of  any  other  Euro- 
pean po\\er.  It  has  been  influential  in 
bringing  about  the  detiuite  reliuquish- 
ineut  of  any  supposed  protectorate  by 
Great  Britain  over  the  Mosquito  coast. 

President  Polk,  in  the  case  of  Yucatan 
and  the  proposed  voluntary  transfer  of 
that  country  to  Great  Britain  or  Spain, 
relied  upon  the  Monroe  doctrine,  though 
perhaps  erroneously,  when  he  declared 
in  a  special  message  to  congress  on  the 
subject  that  the  United  States  could  not 
consent  to  any  such  transfer.  Yet,  in 
somewhat  the  same  spirit,  Secretary 
Fish  affirmed  in  1&70  that  President 
Grant  had  but  followed  "the  teachings 
of  all  our  history"  in  declaring  in  his 
annual  message  of  that  year  that  exist- 
ing dependencies  were  no  longer  regarded 
as  subject  to  transfer  from  one  European 
power  to  another,  and  that  when  the 
present  relation  of  colonies  ceases  they 
are  to  become  independent  powers. 

Another  development  of  the  rule, 
though  apparently  not  necessarily  re- 
quired by  either  its  letter  or  its  spirit, 
is  found  in  the  objection  to  arbitration 
of  South  American  controversies  by  a 
European  power.  American  questions,  it 
is  said,  are  for  American  decision,  and 
on  that  ground  the  United  States  went 
so  far  as  to  refuse  to  mediate  in  the  war 
between  Chili  and  Peru  jointly  with 
Great  Britain  and  France. 

Finally,  on  the  ground,  among  others, 
that  the  authority  of  the  Monroe  doc- 
trine and  the  prestige  of  the  United 
Slates  as  its  exponent  and  sponsor  would 
he  seriously  impaired,  Secretary  Bayard 
strenuously  resisted  the  enforcement  of 
the  Pelletir  claim  against  Hayti. 

HOW   MR.   BAYARD   UPHELD   IT. 

"The  United  States,"  he  said,  "has  pro- 
claimed herself  the  protector  of  this  west- 
ern world,  in  which  she  is  by  far  the 
stronger  power,  from  the  intrusion  of 
European  sovereignties.  She  can  point 
with  proud  satisfaction  to  the  fact  that 
over  and  over  again  has  she  declared 
effectively  that  serious  indeed  would  be 
the  consequences  if  European  hostile  foot 
should,  without  just  cause,  tread  those 
states  in  the  new  world  which  have 
emancipated  themselves  from  European 
control.  She  has  announced  that  she 
would  cherish,  as  it  becomes  her,  the  ter- 
ritorial rights  of  the  feeblest  of  those 
states,  regarding  them  not  merely  as  in 
the  eye  of  the  law  equal  to  even  the 
greatest  of  nationalities,  but  in  view  of 
her  distinctive  policy  as  entitled  to  be  re- 
garded by  her  as  the  objects  of  a  peculi- 


arly gracious  caro.  I  feel  bound  to  say 
that  if  we  should  sanction  by  reprisals  in 
Hayti  the  ruthless  invasion  of  her  terri- 
tory and  insult,  to  her  sovereignty  which 
the  facts  now  before  us  disclose,  if  we 
approve  by  solemn  executive  action  and 
congressional  assent  that  invasion,  it 
would  be  difficult  for  us  hereafter  to  as- 
sert that  in  the  new  world,  of  whose 
rights  we  are  the  peculiar  guardians, 
these  rights  have  never  been  invaded  by 
ourselves." 

The  foregoing  enumeration  not  only 
shows  the  many  instances  wherein  the 
rule  in  question  has  been  affirmed  and 
applied,  but  also  demonstrates  that  the 
Venezuelan  boundary  controversy  is  in 
any  view  far  within  the  scope  and  spirit 
of  the  rule  as  uniformly  accepted  and 
acted  upon.  A  doctrine  of  American  pub- 
lic law  thus  long  and  firmly  established 
and  supported  could  not  easily  be  ignored 
in  a  proper  case  for  its  application,  even 
were  the  considerations  upon  which  it  is 
founded  obscure  or  questionable.  No 
such  objection  can  be  made,  however, 
to  the  Monroe  doctrine  understood  and  de- 
fined in  the  manner  already  stated.  It 
rests,  on  the  contrary,  upon  facts  and 
principles  that  are  both  intelligible  and 
incontrovertible. 

NO  INTEREST  IN  EUROPE. 

That  distance  and  three  thousand  miles 
of  intervening  ocean  make  any  perman- 
ent political  union  between  a  European 
and  an  American  state  unnatural  and  in- 
expedient will  hardly  be  denied.  But 
physical  and  geographical  considerations 
are  the  least  of  the  objections  to  such  a 
union.  Europe,  as  Washington  observed, 
has  a  set  of  primary  interests  which  are 
peculiar  to  herself.  America  is  not  inter- 
ested in  them  and  ought  not  be  vexed 
or  complicated  w?ith  them.  Each  great 
European  power,  for  instance,  to-day 
maintains  enormous  armies  and  fleets  in 
self-defense  and  for  protection  against 
any  other  European  power  or  powers. 
What  have  the  states  of  America  to  do 
with  that  condition  of  things,  or  why 
should  they  be  impoverished  by  wars  or 
preparations  for  Avars  with  whose  causes 
or  results  they  can  have  no  direct  con- 
cern? If  all  Europe  were  suddenly  to  fly 
to  arms  over  the  fate  of  Turkey,  would 
it  not  be  preposterous  that  any  American 
state  should  find  itself  inextricably  in- 
volved in  the  miseries  and  burdens  of  the 
contest?  If  it  were  it  would  have  to  be 
a  partner  in  the  cost  and  losses  of  the 
struggle,  but  not  in  any  ensuing  benefits. 


THE   CORRESPONDENCE. 


25 


\Vlmt  is  true  of  the  material  is  no  less 
true  of  wlmt  may  be  termed  the  moral 
interests  involved.  Those  pertaining  to 
Knropo  are  peculiar  to  her,  and  are  en- 
tirely diverse  from  those  pertaining  and 
peeiiliar  to  America.  Europe  as  a  whole 
is  monarchical,  arid,  with  the  single  im- 
l>(>rt;iiit  exception  of  the  republic  of 
K ranee,  is  committed  to  the  monarchical 
principle.  America,  on  the  other  hand, 
is  devoted  to  the  exactly  opposite  prin- 
eiple—-to  the  idea  that  every  people  has 
an  inalienable  right  of  self-government, 
and  in  the  United  States  of  America  has 
furnished  to  the  world  the  most  con- 
spieuous  and  conclusive  example  and 
proof  of  the  excellence  of  free  institu- 
tions, whether  from  the  standpoint  of 
national  greatness  or  of  individual  hap- 
piness. 

INCONGRUOUS    AND   INJURIOUS. 

It  cannot  be  necessary,  however,-  to 
enlarge  upon  this  phase  of  the  subject. 
Whether  moral  or  material  interests  be 
considered,  it  cannot  but  be  universally 
eon  ceded  that  those  of  Europe  are  irre- 
concilably diverse  from  those  of  Amer- 
ica, and  that  any  European  control  of  the 
latter  is  necessarily  both  incongruous  and 
injurious. 

If,  however,  for  the  reasons  stated,  the 
forcible  intrusion  of  European  powers 
into  American  politics  is  to  be  depre- 
cated; if,  as  it  is  to  be  deprecated,  it 
should  be  resisted  and  prevented,  such 
resistance  and  prevention  must  come 
from  the  United  States.  They  would 
come  from  it,  of  course,  were  it  made  the 
point  of  attack,  but  if  they  come  at  all 
they  must  also  come  from  it  when  any 
other  American  state  is  attacked,  since 
only  the  .United  States  has  the  strength 
adequate  to  the  exigency.  Is  it  true,  then, 
that  the  safety  and  welfare  of  the  United 
States  are  so  coincident  with  the  mainten- 
anee  of  the  independence  of  every  Ameri- 
can state  as  against  every  European 
power  as  to  justify  and  require  the  inter- 
position of  the  United  States  whenever 
tliat  independence  is  endangered?  The 
question  can  be  candidly  answered  in  but 
one  way. 

NATURAL  ALLIES. 

The  states  of  America.  South  as  well 
as  North,  by  geographical  proximity,  by 
natural  sympathy,  by  similarity  of  gov- 
ernmental constitutions,  are  friends  and 
allies,  commercially  and  politically,  of 
the  United  States.  To  allow  the  subju- 
gation of  any  of  them  by  a  European 
power  is.  of  course,  to  completely  re- 
verse that  situation,  and  signifies  the 


loss   of   all    the   advantages   incident   to 
their  natural  relations  to  us. 

But  that  is  not  all.  The  people  of  the 
United  States  have  a  vital  interest  in 
the  cause  of  popular  self-government. 
They  have  secured  the  right  for  them- 
selves and  their  posterity  at  the  cost  of 
infinite  blood  and  treasure.  They  have 
realized  and  exemplified  its  beneficial 
operation  by  a  career  unexampled  in 
point  of  national  greatness  or  individual 
felicity.  They  believe  it  to  be  for  the 
healing  of  all  nations,  and  that  civiliza- 
tion must  either  advance  or  retrograde 
accordingly  as  its  supremacy  is  ex- 
tended or  curtailed. 

Imbued  with  these  sentiments,  the 
people  of  the  United  States  might  not 
impossibly  be  wrought  up  to  an  active 
propaganda  in  favor  of  a  cause  so  highly 
valued  by  themselves  and  for  mankind. 
But  the  age  of  the  crusader  has  passed 
and  they  are  content  with  such  asser- 
tions and  defense  of  the  right  of  popular 
self-government  as  their  own  security 
and  welfare  demand.  It  is  in  that  view 
more  than  in  any  other  that  they  be- 
lieve it  not  to  be  tolerated  that  the  poli- 
tical control  of  an  American  state  shall 
be  forcibly  assumed  by  a  European 
power.  The  mischiefs  apprehended  from 
such  a  source  are  none  the  less  real  be- 
cause not  immediately  imminent  in  any 
specific  case,  and  are  none  the  less  to  be 
guarded  against  because  the  combina- 
tion of  circumstances  that  will  bring 
them  upon  us  cannot  be  predicted. 

The  civilized  states  of  Christendom 
deal  with  each  other  on  substantially  the 
same  principles  that  regulate  the  con- 
duct of  individuals.  The  greater  its  en- 
lightenment the  more  surely  every  state 
perceives  that  its  permanent  interests 
require  it  to  be  governed  by  the  immut- 
able principles  of  right  and  justice. 
Each,  nevertheless,  is  only  too  liable  to 
succumb  to  the  temptations  offered  by 
seeming  special  opportunities  for  its  own 
aggrandizement,  and  each  would  rashly 
imperil  its  own  safety  were  it  not  to  re- 
member that  for  the  regard  and  respect 
of  other  states  it  must  be  largely  depend- 
ent upon  its  own  strength  and  power. 

SUPREME  ON  THIS  CONTINENT. 

To-day  the  United  States  is  practically 
sovereign  on  this  continent,  and  its  fiat 
is  law  upon  the  subjects  to  which  it  con- 
fines its  interposition.  Why?  It  is  not 
because  of  the  pure  friendship  or  good 
will  felt  for  it.  It  is  not  simply  by  reason 
of  its  high  character  ns  n  civilized  state. 
nor  because  wisdom  and  justice  and 


26 


THE    CORRESPONDENCE. 


equity  are  the  invariable  characteristics 
of  the  dealings  of  the  United  States.  It 
is  because,  in  addition  to  all  other 
grounds,  its  infinite  resources,  combined 
with  its  isolated  position,  render  it  mas- 
ter of  the  situation  and  practically  in- 
vulnerable as  against  any  or  all  other 
powers.  All  the  advantages  of  this  su- 
periority are  at  once  imperilled  if  the 
principle  be  admitted  that  European  pow- 
ers may  convert  American  states  into 
colonies  or  provinces  of  their  own.  The 
principle  would  be  eagerly  availed  of, 
and  every  power  doing  so  would  imme- 
diately acquire  a  base  of  military  opera- 
tions agairst  us.  What  one  power  was 
permitted  to  do  could  not  be  denied  to 
another,  and  it  is  not  inconceivable  that 
the  struggle  now  going  on  for  the  ac- 
quisition of  Africa  might  be  transferred 
to  South  America.  If  it  were,  the  weaker 
countries  would  unquestionably  be  soon 
absorbed,  while  the  ultimate  result  might 
be  the  partition  of  all  South  America  be- 
tween the  various  European  powers. 

The  disastrous  consequences  to  the 
United  States  of  such  a  condition  of 
things  are  obvious.  The  loss  of  prestige, 
of  authority,  and  of  weight  in  the  coun- 
cils of  the  family  of  nations  would  be 
among  the  least  of  these.  Our  only  real 
rivals  in  peace  as  well  as  enemies  in  war 
would  be  located  at  our  very  doors.  Thus 
far  in  our  history  we  have  been  spared 
the  burdens  and  evils  of  immense  stand- 
ing armies  and  all  the  other  accessories 
of  hugh  warlike  establishments,  and  the 
exemption  has  largely  contributed  to  our 
national  greatness  and  wealth  as  well  as 
to  the  happiness  of  every  citizen.  But 
with  the  powers  of  Europe  permanently 
encamped  on  American  soil,  the  ideal 
conditions  we  have  thus  far  enjoyed  can- 
not be  expected  to  continue.  We,  'too, 
must  be  armed  to  the  teeth;  we,  too. 
must  convert  the  flower  of  our  male 
population  into  soldiers  and  sailors,  and 
!>y  withdrawing  them  from  the  various 
pursuits  of  peaceful  industry,  we,  too, 
must  practically  annihilate  a  large  share 
of  the  productive  energy  of  the  nation. 
How  a  greater  calamity  than  this  could 
overtake  us,  it  is  difficult  to  see. 

FRIENDSHIP   NO   SECURITY. 

Nor  are  our  just  apprehensions  to  be 
allayed  by  the  suggestions  of  the  friendli- 
ness of  European  powers,  of  their  good 
will,  of  their  disposition,  should  they  be 
our  neighbors,  to  dwell  with  us  in  peace 
and  harmony.  The  people  of  the  United 
States  have  learned  in  the  school  of  ex- 
perience to  what  extent  the  retaliations 


of  states  to  each  other  depend  not  upon 
sentiment  nor  principle,  but  upon  selfish 
interest.  They  will  not  soon  forget  that, 
in  their  hour  of  distress,  all  their  anxi- 
eties and  burdens  were  aggravated  by 
the  possibility  of  demonstrations  against 
their  national  life  on  the  part  of  powers 
with  whom  they  had  long  maintained 
the  most  harmonious  relations.  They 
have  yet  in  mind  that  Prance  seized  upon 
the  apparent  opportunity  of  our  civil 
war  to  set  up  a  monarchy  in  the  adjoin- 
ing state  of  Mexico.  They  realize  that 
had  France  and  Great  Britain  held  im- 
portant South  American  possessions  to 
work  from  and  to  benefit,  the  tempta- 
tion to  destroy  the  predominance  of  the 
great  republic  in  this  hemisphere  by  fur- 
thering its  dismemberment  might  have 
been  irresistible.  From  that  grave  peril 
they  have  been  saved  in  the  past,  and 
may  be  saved  again  in  the  future, 
through  the  operation  of  the  sure  but 
silent  force  of  the  doctrine  proclaimed 
by  President  Monroe.  To  abandon  it. 
on  the  other  hand,  disregarding  both 
the  logic  of  the  situation  and  the  facts 
of  our  past  experience,  would  be  to  re- 
nounce a  policy  wrhich  has  proved  both 
an  easy  defense  against  foreign  aggres- 
sion and  a  prolific  source  of  internal 
progress  and  prosperity. 

AS    APPLIED    TO    VENEZUELA. 

There  is,  then,  a  doctrine  of  American 
public  law,  well  founded  in  principle, 
and  abundantly  sanctioned  by  precedent, 
which  entitles  and  requires  the  United 
States  to  treat  as  an  injury  to  itself  the 
the  forcible  assumption  by  a  European 
power  of  political  control  over  an  Ameri- 
can state.  The  application  of  the  doc- 
trine to  the  boundary  dispute  between 
Great  Britain  and  Venezuela  remains 
to  be  made  and  presents  no  real  diffi- 
culty. Though  the  dispute  relates  to  a 
boundary  line,  yet,  as  it  is  between 
states,  it  necessarily  imports  political 
control  to  be  lost  by  one  party  and  gained 
by  the  other.  The  political  control  at 
stake,  too,  is  of  no  mean  importance,  but 
concerns  a  domain  of  great  extent.  The 
British  claim,  it  will  be  remembered, 
apparently  expanded  in  two  years  some 
33.000  square  miles,  and,  if  it  also  di- 
rectly involves  the  command  of  the 
mouth  of  the  Orinoco,  is  of  immense  con- 
sequence in  connection  with  the  whole 
river  navigation  of  the  interior  of  South 
America. 

It  has  been  intimated,  indeed,  that  in 
respect  of  these  South  American  posses- 
sions Great  Britain  is  herself  an  Amen- 


THE   CORRESPONDENCE. 


27 


can  state,  like  any  other,  so  that  a  con- 
troversy between  her  and  Venezuela  is 
to  bo  settled  between  themselves  as  it' 
it  were  between  Venezuela  and  Bra/il. 
or  between  Venezuela  and  Colombia,  and 
does  not  call  for  or  justify  United  States 
intervention.  If  this  view  be  tenable  at 
nil  the  logical  sequence  is  plain.  Great 
Britain,  as  a  South  American  state,  is  to 
be  entirely  differentiated  from  Great 
Britain  generally,  and  if  the  boundary 
question  cannot  be  settled  otherwise 
than  by  force,  British  Guiana  with  her 
own  independent  resources,  and  not 
those  of  the  British  empire,  should  be 
left  to  settle  the  matter  with  Venezuela— 
an  arrangement  which  very  possibly 
Venezuela  might  not  object  to. 

NOT    AN    AMERICAN    POWER. 

But  the  proposition  that  a  European 
power  with  an  American  dependency  is 
for  the  purposes  of  the  Monroe  doctrine 
to  be  classed  not  as  a  European  but  as 
an  American  state  will  not  admit  of  seri- 
ous discussion.  If  it  were  to  be  adopted 
the  Monroe  doctrine  would  be  too  value- 
less to  be  worth  asserting.  Not  only 
would  every  European  power  now  hav- 
ing a  South  American  colony  be  enabled 
to  extend  its  possessions  on  this  contin- 
ent indefinitely,  but  any  other  European 
power  might  also  do  the  same  by  first 
taking  pains  to  procure  a  fraction  of 
South  American  soil  by  voluntary  ces- 
sion. The  declaration  of  the  Monroe  mes- 
sage that  existing  colonies  or  dependen- 
cies of  a  European  power  would  not  be 
interfered  with  by  the  United  States 
means  colonies  or  dependencies  then  ex- 
isting, with  their  limits  as  then  exist- 
ing. So  it  has  been  invariably  construed, 
and  so  it  must  continue  to  be  construed, 
unless  it  is  to  be  deprived  of  all  vital 
force.  Great  Britain  cannot  be  deemed 
a  South  American  state  within  the  pur- 
view of  the  Monroe  doctrine,  nor.  if  she 
is  appropriating  Venezuelan  territory,  is 
it  material  that  she  does  so  by  advanc- 
ing the  frontier  of  an  old  colony  instead 
of  by  the  planting  of  a  new  colony.  The 
difference  is  a  matter  of  form  and  not  of 
substance,  and  the  doctrine,  if  pertinent 
in  the  one  case,  must  be  in  the  other  also. 

It  is  not  admitted,  however,  and  there- 
fore cannot  be  assumed,  that  Great 
Britain  is  in  fact  usurpmff  dominion  over 
Venezuelan  territory.  While  Venezuela 
charges  such  usurpations,  Great  Britain 
denies  it.  and  the  United  States,  until  the 
merits  are  authoratively  ascertained,  can 
take  sides  with  neither.  But  while  this 
is  so,  while  the  United  States  may  not. 


under  existing  circumstances,  at  least. 
take  upon  itself  to  say  which  of  the  two 
parties  is  right  and  which  wrong,  it  is 
certainly  within  its  right  to  demand  that 
the  truth  shall  be  ascertained.  Being  en- 
titled to  resent  and  resist  any  sequestra- 
tion of  Venezuelan  soil  by  'Great  Brit- 
ain, it  is  necessarily  entitled  to  know 
whether  such  sequestration  has  occurred 
or  is  now  going  on.  Otherwise,  if  the 
United  States  is  without  the  right  to 
know  and  have  it  determined  whether 
there  is  or  is  not  British  aggression 
upon  Venezuelan  territory,  its  right  to 
protest  against  or  repel,  such  aggression 
may  be  dismissed  from  consideration. 
The  right  to  act  upon  a  fact,  the  ex- 
istence of  which  there  is  no  right  to 
have  ascertained,  is  simply  illusory. 

PP:ACEFUL  ARBITRATION. 

It  being  clear,  therefore,  that  the 
United  States  may  legitimately  insist 
upon  the  merits  of  the  boundary  ques- 
tion being  determined,  it  is  equally  clear 
that  there  is  but  one  feasible  mode  of  de- 
termining them,  viz.,  peaceful  arbitra- 
tion. The  impracticability  of  any  con- 
ventional adjustment  has  been  often  and 
thoroughly  demonstrated.  Even  more 
impossible  of  consideration  is  an  appeal 
to  arms,  a  mode  of  settling  national  pre- 
tensions unhappily  not  yet  wholly  obso- 
lete. If,  however,  it  were  not  condemn- 
able  as  a  relic  of  barbarism  and  a  crime 
in  itself,  so  one-sided  a  contest  could  not 
be  invited,  nor-even  accepted  by  Great 
Britain  without  listinct  disparagement 
to  her  character  as  a  civilized  State. 

Great  Britain,  however,  assumes  no 
such  attitude.  On  the  contrary,  she  both 
admits  that  there  is  a  controversy  and 
that  arbitration  should  be  resorted  to  for 
its  adjustment.  But,  while  up  to  this 
point  her  attitude  leaves  nothing  to  be 
desired,  its  practical  effect  is  completely 
nullified  by  her  Insistence  that  the  sub- 
mission shall  cover  but  a  part  of  the  con- 
troversy—that, as  a  condition  of  a rbit rat- 
ing her  right  to  a  part  of  the  disputed 
territory,  the  remainder  shall  be  turned 
over  to  her.  If  it  were  possible  to  point 
to  a  boundary  which  both  parties  have 
ever  agreed  or  assumed  to  be  such,  either 
expressly  or  tacitly,  the  demand  that  ter- 
ritory conceded  by  such  line  to  British 
Guiana  should  be  held  not  to  be  in  dis- 
pute might  rest  upon  a  reasonable  basis. 
But  there  is  no  such  line.  The  territory 
wrhich  Great  Britain  insists  shall  be  con- 
ceded to  her  as  a  condition  of  arbitrating 
her  claim  to  other  territory,  has  never 
been  admitted  to  belong  to  her.  It  has 


28 


THE   CORRESPONDENCE. 


always  and  consistently  been  claimed  by 
Venezuela.  Upon  what  principle,  except 
her  feebleness  as  a  nation,  is  she  to  be 
denied  the  right  of  having  the*  claim 
heard  and  passed  upon  by  an  impartial 
tribunal?  No  reason  or  shadow  of  reason 
appears  in  all  the  voluminous  literature 
of  the  subject.  "It  is  to  be  so  because  I 
will  it  to  be  so"  seems  to  be  the  only 
justification  Great  Britain  offers. 

PLEA    OP    LONG    POSSESSION. 

It  is,  indeed,  intimated  that  the  Brit- 
ish claim  to  this  particular  territory  rests 
upon  an  occupation  which,  whether  ac- 
quiesced in  or  not,  has  ripened  into  a 
perfect  title  by  long  continuance.  But 
what  prescription  affecting  territorial 
rights  can  be  said  to  exist  as  between 
sovereign  states?  Or,  if  there  is  any. 
what  is  the  legitimate  consequence?  It 
is  not  that  all  arbitration  should  be  de- 
nied, but  only  that  the  submission  should 
embrace  an  additional  topic,  namely,  the 
validity  of  the  asserted  prescriptive 
title,  either  in  point  of  law  or  in  point 
of  fact.  No  different  result  follows  from 
the  contention  that  as  a  matter  of  prin- 
ciple Great  Britain  cannot  be  asked  to 
submit  and  ought  not  to  submit  to  arbi- 
tration her  political  sovereign  rights  over 
territory.  This  contention,  as  applied  to 
the  whole  or  a  vital  part  of  the  posses- 
sions of  a  sovereign  state  need  not  be 
controverted.  To  hold  otherwise  might 
be  equivalent  to  holding  that  a  sovereign 
state  was  bound  to  arbitrate  its  very 
existence.  But  Great  Britain  has  her- 
self shown  in  various  instances  that  the 
principle  has  no  pertinency  when  either 
the  interests  or  the  territorial  area  in- 
volved are  not  of  controlling  magnitude, 
and  her  loss  of  them  as  the  result  of  an 
arbitration  cannot  appreciably  affect 
her  honor  or  her  power.  Thus,  she  has 
arbitrated  the  extent  of  her  colonial 
possessions,  twice  with  the  United 
States,  twice  with  Portugal,  and  once 
with  Germany  and  perhaps  in  other  in- 
stances. 

A  PRECEDENT. 

The  Northwestern  water  boundary 
arbitration  of  1872,  between  her  and  this 
country,  is  an  example  in  point  and  well 
illustrates  both  the  effect  to  be  given  to 
long-continued  used  and  enjoyment  and 
the  fact  that  a  truly  great  power  sacri- 
fices neither  prestige  nor  dignity  by  re- 
considering the  most  emphatic  rejection 
of  a  proposition  when  satisfied  of  the 
obvious  and  intrinsic  justice  of  the  case. 
By  the  award  of  the  Emperor  of  Ger- 
many, the  arbitrator  in  that  case,  the 


United  States  acquired  San  Juan  and  a 
number  of  smaller  islands  near  the  coast 
of  Vancouver  as  a  consequence  of  the  de- 
cision that  the  term  "the  channel  which 
separates  the  continent  from  Vancouver's 
island,"  as  used  in  the  treaty  of  Wash- 
ington of  184(3,  means  the  Haro  channel 
and  not  the  Rosario  channel.  Yet  a  lead- 
ing contention  of  Great  Britain  before 
the  arbitration  was  that  equity  required 
a  judgment  in  her  favor  because  a  decis- 
ion in  favor  of  the  United  States  would 
deprive  British  subjects  of  rights  of 
navigation  of  which  they  had  had  the 
habitual  enjoyment  from  the  time  when 
the  Rosario  strait  was  first  explored  and 
surveyed  in  1798.  So,  though  by  virtue 
of  the  award  the  United  State  acquired 
San  Juan  and  the  other  islands  of  the 
group  to  which  it  belongs,  the  British 
foreign  secretary  had,  in  1859,  instructed 
the  British  minister  at  Washington  as 
follows: 

Her  majesty's  government  must,  there- 
fore, under  any  circumstances,  maintain  the 
right  of  the  British  crown  to  the  island  of 
San  Juan.  The  interests  at  stake  in  con- 
nection with  the  retention  of  that  island 
are  too  important  to  admit  of  compromise, 
and  your  lordship  will  consequently  bear  in 
mind  that,  whatever  arrangement  as  to  the 
boundary  line  is  finally  arrived  at,  no  settle- 
ment of  the  question  will  be  accepted  by  her 
majesty's  government  which  does  not  pro- 
vide for  the  island  of  San  Juan  being  re- 
served to  the  British  crown. 

BRITAIN'S    IPSE    DIXIT. 

Thus,  as  already  intimated,  the  Brit- 
ish demand  that  her  right  to  a  portion 
of  the  disputed  territory  shall  be  ack- 
nowledged before  she  will  consent  to  an 
arbitration  as  to  the  rest,  seems  to  stand 
upon  nothing  but  her  own  ipse  dixit.  She 
says  to  Venezuela,  in  substance:  "You 
can  get  none  of  the  debatable  land  by 
force,  because  you  are  not  strong 
enough;  you  can  get  none  by  treaty,  be- 
cause I  will  not  agree;  and  you  can  take 
your  chance  of  getting  a  portion  by  arbi- 
tration, only  if  you  first  agree  to  aban- 
don to  me  such  other  portion  as  I  may 
designate." 

It  is  not  perceived  how  such  an  at- 
titude can  be  defended,  nor  how  it  is 
reconcilable  with  that  love  of  justice  and 
fair  play  so  eminently  characteristic  of 
the  English  race.  It,  in  effect,  deprives 
Venezuela  of  her  free  agency  and  puts 
her  under  virtual  duress.  Territory  ac- 
quired by  reason  of  it  will  be  as  much 
wrested  from  her  by  the  strong  hand  as 
if  occupied  by  British  troops  or  covered 
by  British  fleets. 


THE  CORRESPONDENCE. 


29 


It  seerns,  therefore,  quite  impossible 
that  this  position  of  Great  Britain 
should  be  assented  to  by  the  United 
States,  or  that,  if  such  position  be  ad- 
hered to  with  the  result  of  enlarging  the 
bounds  of  British  Guiana,  it  should  not 
be  regarded  as  amounting,  in  substance, 
to  an  invasion  and  conquest. of  Venezue- 
lan territory. 

In  these  circumstances,  the  duty  of 
the  president  appears  to  him  unmistak- 
able and  imperative.  Great  Britain's 
assertion  of  title  to  the  disputed  terri- 
tory, combined  with  her  refusal  to  have 
that  title  investigated,  being  a  substan- 
tial appropriation  of  the  territory  to  her 
own  use,  not  to  protest  and  give  warning 
that  the  transaction  will  be  regarded  as 
injurious  to  the  interests  of  the  people 
of  the  United  States  as  well  as  oppres- 
sive in  itself  would  be  to  ignore  an  es- 
tablished policy  with  which  the  honor 
and  welfare  of  this  country  are  closely 
identified. 

While  the  measures  necessary  or  pro- 
per for  the  vindication  of  that  policy 
are  to  be  determined  by  another  branch 
of  the  government,  it  is  clearly  for  the 
executive  to  have  nothing  undone  which 
may  tend  to  render  such  determination 
unnecessary. 

AN  ANSWER  DEMANDED. 

You  are  instructed,  therefore,  to  pre- 
sent the  foregoing  views  to  Lord  Salis- 
bury by  reading  to  him  this  communi- 
cation (leaving  with  him  a  copy  should 
he  so  desire),  and  to  reinforce  them  by 
such  pertinent  considerations  as  will 
doubtless  occur  to  you.  They- call  for  a 
definite  decision  upon  the  point  whether 
Great  Britain  will  consent  or  will  de- 
cline to  submit  the  Venezuelan  boundary 
question  >n  its  entirety  to  impartial  ar- 
bitration. It  is  the  earnest  hope  of  the 
president  that  the  conclusion  will  be  on 
the  side  of  arbitration,  and  that  Great 
Britain  will  add  one  more  to  the  con- 
spicuous precedents  she  has  already  fur- 
nished in  favor  of  that  wise  and  just 
mode  of  adjusting  international  disputes. 

If  he  is  to  be  disappointed  in  that 
hope,  however — a  result  not  to  be  antici- 


pated and  in  his  judgment  calculated  to 
greatly  embarrass  the  future  relations 
between  this  country  and  Great  Britain 
— it  is  his  wish  to  be  made  acquainted 
with  the  fact  at  such  early  date  as  will 
enable  him  to  lay  the  whole  subject  be- 
fore Congress  in  his  next  annual  message. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

RICHARD  OLNEY. 
HINTS  FROM  MR.  ADEE. 

For    Mr.    Bayard's    instruction   Acting 
Secretary  Adee  wrote  as  follows: 
(No.  806.) 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  July  24,  1895. 
His  Excellency,  Thomas  F.  Bayard,  Etc., 

Etc.,  Etc.,  London: 

Sir— In  Mr.  Olney's  instructions  No.  804, 
of  the  20th  instant,  in  relation  to  the 
Anglo- Venezuelan  boundary  dispute,  you 
will  note  a  reference  to  the  sudden  in- 
crease of  the  area  claimed  for  British 
Guiana,  amounting  to  33,000  square 
miles,  between  1884  and  1886.  This  state- 
ment is  made  on  the  authority  of  the 
British  publication  entitled  the  States- 
man's Year  Book.  I  add  for  your  bet- 
ter information  that  the  same  statement 
is  found  in  the  British  Colonial  Office 
List,  a  government  publication.  In  the 
issue  for  1885  the  following  passage  oc- 
curred, on  page  24,  under  the  head  of 
British  Guiana: 

It  is  impossible  to  specify  the  exact  area 
of  the  colony,  as  its  precise  boundaries  be- 
tween Venezuela  and  Brazil  respectively  are 
unclertermined,  but  it  has  been  computed  to 
be  76,000  snuare  miles. 

In  the  issue  of  the  same  List  for  1886 
the  same  statement  occurs  on  page  33, 
with  the  change  of  area  to  "about  109,- 
000  square  miles." 

The  official  maps  in  the  two  volumes 
mentioned  are  identical,  so  that  the  in- 
crease of  33,000  square  miles  claimed  for 
British  Guiana  is  not  thereby  explained, 
but  later  Colonial  Office  List  maps  show 
a  varying  sweep  of  the  boundary  west- 
ward into  what,  previously  figured  as 
Venezuelan  territory,  while  no  change 
is  noted  on  the  Brazilian  frontier.  I  am, 
sir,  your  obedient  servant. 

ALVKY  A.  AI>KK.  AH  ing  Secretary. 


30 


THE   CORRESPONDENCE. 


SALISBURY'SJPIRST  NOTE. 

States   the   Grounds  of  Great    Britain's  Re- 
fusal to  Arbitrate. 


Foreign  Office,  Nov.  26,  1895. 

Sir— On  the  7th  of  August  I  trans- 
mitted to  Lord  Gough  a  copy  of  the  dis- 
patch from  Mr.  Olney  which  Mr.  Bayard 
had  left  with  me  that  day,  and  of  which 
he  had  read  portions  to  me.  I  informed 
him  at  the  time  that  it  could  not  be  an- 
swered until  it  had  been  carefully  con- 
sidered by  the  law  officers  of  the  crown. 
I  have,  therefore,  deferred  replying  to  it 
till  after  the  recess. 

I  will  not  now  deal  with  those  por- 
tions of  it  which  are  concerned  exclu- 
sively with  the  controversy  that  has  for 
some  time  past  existed  between  the  re- 
public of  Venezuela  and  her  majesty's 
government  in  regard  to  the  boundary 
which  separates  their  dominions.  I  take 
a  very  different  view  from  Mr.  Olney  of 
various  matters  upon  which  he  touches 
in  that  part  of  the  dispatch,  but  I  will 
defer  for  the  present  all  observations 
upon  it,  as  it  concerns  matters  which  are 
not  in  themselves  of  first-rate  import- 
ance, and  do  not  directly  concern  the  re- 
lations between  Great  Britain  and  the 
United  States. 

The  latter  part,  however,  of  the  dis- 
patch, turning  from  the  question  of  the 
frontiers  of  Venezuela,  proceeds  to  deal 
with  the  principles  of  a  far  wider  char- 
acter, and  to  advance  doctrines  of  inter- 
national law  which  are  of  considerable 
interest  to  all  the  nations  whose  domin- 
ions include  any  portion  of  the  Western 
hemisphere.  The  contention  set  forth 
by  Mr.  Olney  in  this  part  of  his  dispatch 
are  represented  by  him  as  being  an  ap- 
plication of  the  political  maxims  which 
are  well  known  in  American  discussion 
under  the  name  of  the  Monroe  doctrine. 

NOT  MONROE'S  DOCTRINE. 

As  far  as  I  am  aware,  this  doctrine  has 
never  been  before  advanced  on  behalf 
of  the  United  States  in  any  written  com- 
munication addressed  to  the  government 
of  another  nation,  but  it  has  been  gener- 
ally adopted  and  assumed  as  true  by 
many  eminent  writers  and  politicians  in 
the  United  States.  It  is  said  to  have 
largely  influenced  the  government  of  that 
country  in  the  conduct  of  its  foreign 
affairs,  though  Mr.  Clayton,  who  was 


secretary  of  state  under  President  Tay- 
lor, expressly  stated  that  that  adminis- 
tration had  in  no  way  adopted  it.  But 
during  the  period  that  has  elapsed  since 
the  message  of  President  Monroe  was  de- 
livered, in  1823,  the  doctrine  has  under- 
gone a  very  notable  development,  and 
the  aspect  which  it  now  presents  in  the 
hands  of  Mr.  Olney  differs  widely  from 
its  character  when  it  first  issued  from 
the  pen  of  its  author.  The  two  proposi- 
tions which  in  effect  President  Monroe 
laid  down  were:  (1)  that  America  was  no 
longer  to  be  looked  upon  as  a  field  for 
European  colonization,  and  (2)  that  Eu- 
rope must  not  attempt  to  extend  its  po- 
litical system  to  America,  or  to  control 
the  political  conditions  of  any  of  the 
American  communities  who  had  recently 
declared  their  independence. 

The  dangers  against  which  President 
Monroe  thought  it  right  to  guard  were 
not  as  imaginary  as  they  would  seem  at 
the  present  day.  The  formation  of  the 
Holy  Alliance,  the  Congresses  of  Lay- 
bach  and  Verona,  the  invasion  of  Spain 
by  France  for  the  purpose  of  forcing 
upon  the  Spanish  people  a  form  of  gov- 
ernment which  seemed  likely  to  disap- 
pear unless  it  was  sustained  by  external 
aid,  were  incidents  fresh  in  the  mind  of 
President  Monroe  when  he  penned  his 
celebrated  message.  The  system  of 
which  he  spoke,  and  of  \vhich  he  so  reso- 
lutely deprecated  the  application  to  the 
American  continent,  was  the  system  then 
adopted  by  certain  powerful  states  upon 
the  continent  of  Europe,  of  combining 
to  prevent  by  force  of  arms  the  adop- 
tion in  other  countries  of  political  in- 
stitutions which  they  disliked,  and  to 
uphold  by  external  pressure  those  which 
they  approved. 

Various  portions  of  South  America  had 
recently  declared  their  independence, 
and  that  independence  had  not  been 
recognized  by  the  governments  of  Spain 
and  Portugal,  to  which,  with  small  ex- 
ceptions, the  whole  of  Central  and  South 
America  were  nominally  subject.  It  was 
not  an  imaginary  danger  that  he  fore- 
saw, if  he  feared  that  the  same  spirit 
which  had  dictated  the  French  expedi- 
tion into  Spain  might  inspire  the  more 


THE   CORRESPONDENCE. 


powerful  governments  of  Europe  with 
the  idea  of  imposing,  by  the  force  of 
:mus,  upon  the  South  American  com- 
munities the  form  of  government  and  the 
political  connection  which  they  had 
thrown  off.  In  declaring  that  the  United 
Slates  would  resist  any  such  enterprise 
if  it  were  contemplated,  President  Mon- 
roe adopted  a  policy  which  received  the 
entire  sympathy  of  the  English  govern- 
ment of  that  day. 

COLONIZING  NOT  INTENDED. 

The  dangers  which  were  apprehended 
by  President  Monroe  have  no  relation 
to  the  state  of  things  in  which  we  live 
at  the  present  day.  There  is  no  dan- 
ger of  any  Holy  Alliance  imposing  its 
system  upon  any  portion  of  the  Ameri- 
can continent,  and  there  is  no  danger 
of  any  European  state  treating  any  part 
of  the  American  continent  as  a  fit  object 
for  European  colonization. 

It  is  intelligible  that  Mr.  Olney  should 
'invoke,  in  defense  of  the  views  on  which 
he  is  now  insisting,  an  authority  which 
enjoys  so  high  a  popularity  with  his  own 
fellow-countrymen.  But  the  circum- 
stances with  which  President  Monroe 
was  dealing  and  those  to  which  the  pres- 
ent American  government  is  addressing 
itself,  have  very  few  features  in  common. 
Great  Britain  is  imposing  no  "system" 
upon  Venezuela,  and  is  not  concerning 
herself  in  any  way  with  the  nature  of  the 
political  institutions  under  which  the 
Venezuelans  may  prefer  to  live.  But  the 
British  empire  and  the  republic  of  Vene- 
zuela are  neighbors,  and  they  have  dif- 
fered for  some  time  past,  and  continue  to 
differ,  as  to  the  line  by  which  their 
dominions  are  separated. 

It  is  a  controversy  with  which  the 
United  States  have  no  apparent  prac- 
tical concern.  It  is  difficult,  indeed,  to 
see  how  it  can  materially  affect  any  state 
or  community  outside  those  primarily 
interested,  except  perhaps  other  parts  of 
her  majesty's  dominions,  such  as  Trini- 
dad. The  disputed  frontier  of  Vene- 
zuela has  nothing  to  do  with  any  of  the 
questions  dealt  with  by  President  .Mon- 
roe. It  is  not  a  question  of  the  coloniza- 
tion by  any  European  power  of  any  por- 
tion of  America.  It  is  not  a  question  of 
the  imposition  upon  the  communities  of 
South  America  of  any  system  of  govern- 
ment devised  in  Europe.  It  is  simply 
the  determination  of  the  frontier  of  a 
British  possession  which  belonged  to 
the  throne  of  England  long  before  the 
republic  of  Venezuela  came  into  exist- 
ence. 


But  even  if  the  interests  of  Vene- 
zuela were  so  far  linked  to  those  of  the 
United  States  as  to  give  to  the  latter  a 
locus  standi  in  this  controversy,  their 
government  apparently  has  not  formed, 
and  certainly  does  -not  express,  any 
opinion  upon  the  actual  merits  of  the  dis- 
pute. The  government  of  the  United 
States  does  not  say  that  Great  Britain 
or  that  Venezuela  is  in  the  right  in  the 
matters  that  are  in  issue.  But  it  lays 
down  that  the  doctrine  of  President 
Monroe,  when  he  opposed  the  imposition 
of  European  systems  or  the  renewal  of 
European  colonization,  confers  upon 
them  the  right  of  demanding  that  when 
a  European  power  has  a  frontier  dif- 
ference with  a  South  American  com- 
munity the  European  power  shall  con- 
sent to  refer  that  controversy  to  arbi- 
tration, and  Mr.  Oluey  states  that  unless 
her  majesty's  government  accede  to  this 
demand  it  will  "greatly  embarrass  the 
future  relations  between  Great  Brit-' 
ain  and  the  United  States." 
OLNEY'S  POSITION  NOT  TENABLE. 

Whatever  may  be  the  authority  of  the 
doctrine  laid  down  by  President  Mon- 
roe, there  is  nothing  in  his  language  to 
show  that  he  ever  thought  of  claiming 
this  novel  prerogative  for  the  United 
States.  It  is  admitted  that  he  did  not 
seek  to  assert  a  protectorate  over  Mex- 
ico or  the  states  of  Central  and  South 
America.  Such  a  claim  would  have  im- 
posed upon  the  United  States  the  duty 
of  answering  for  the  conduct  of  these 
states,'  and  consequently  the  responsi- 
bility of  controlling  it.  His  sagacious 
foresight  would  have  led  him  energetic- 
ally to  deprecate  the  addition  of  so  seri- 
ous a  burden  to  those  which  the  rulers 
of  the  United  States  have  to  bear.  It 
follows  of  necessity  that  if  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  will  not  con- 
trol the  conduct  of  these  communities, 
neither  can  it  undertake  to  protect  them 
from  the  consequences  attaching  to  any 
misconduct  of  which  they  may  be  guilty 
towards  other  nations. 

If  they  violate  in  any  way  the  rights 
of  another  state  or  of  its  subjects,  it.  is 
not  alleged  that  the  Monroe  doctrine  will 
assure  them  the  assistance  of  the  United 
States  in  escaping  from  any  reparation 
which  they  may  be  bound  by  inter- 
national law  to  givr.  .Mr.  Olney  ex- 
pressly disclaims  such  an  inference  from 
the  principles  he  lays  down.  But  the 
claim  which  he  founds  upon  them  is 
that,  if  any  independent  American  state 
advances  a  demand  for  territory  of 


32 


THE   COREESPONDENCE. 


which  its  neighbor  claims  to  be  the 
owner,  and  that  neighbor  is  a  colony 
or  a  European  biaie,  me  United  btatoa 
have  a  right  to  insist  that  the  iliurapean 
state  shall  submit  the  demand  and  its 
own  impugned  rights,  to  arbitration. 

ARBITRATION    POLICY    OPPOSED. 

I  will  not  now  enter  into  a  discussion 
of  the  merits  of  this  method  of  terminat- 
ing international  differences.  It  has 
proved  itself  valuable  in  many  cases, 
but  it  is  not  free  from  defects  which 
often  operate  as  a  serious  drawback  on 
its  value.  It  is  not.  always  easy  to  find 
an  arbitrator  who  is  competent,  and 
who  at  the  same  time  is  wholly  free 
from  bias,  and  the  task  of  insuring  com- 
pliance with  the  award  when  it  is  made 
is  not  exempt  from  difficulty.  It  is  a 
mode  of  settlement  of  which  the  value 
varies  much  according  to  the  nature  of 
the  controversy  to  which  it  is  applied 
and  the  character  of  the  litigants  who 
appeal  to  it.  Whether,  in  any  particular 
case,  it  is  a  suitable  method  of  pro- 
cedure, is  generally  a  delicate  and  diffi- 
cult question.  The  only  parties  who  are 
competent  to  decide  that  question  are 
the  two  parties  whose  rival  contentions 
are  in  issue.  The  claim  of  a  third  na- 
tion, which  is  unaffected  by  the  contro- 
versy, to  impose  this  particular  pro- 
cedure on  either  of  the  two  others  can- 
not be  reasonably  justified,  and  has  no 
foundation  in  the  law  of  nations. 

In  the  remarks  which  I  have  made  I 
have  argued  on  the  theory  that  the 
Monroe  doctrine  in  itself  is  sound.  I 
must  not,  however,  be  understood  .as 
expressing  an  acceptance  of  it  on  the 
part  of  her  majesty's  government.  It 
must  always  be  mentioned  with  respect, 
on  account  of  the  distinguished  states- 
men to  whom  it  is  due  and  the  great 
nations  who  have  generally  adopted  it. 
But  international  law  is  founded  on  the 
general  consent  of  nations,  and  no 
statesman,  however  eminent,  and  no 
nation,  however  powerful,  are  compet- 
ent to  insert  into  the  code  of  inter- 
national law  a  novel  principle  which 
was  never  recognized  before,  and  which 
has  not  since  been  recognized  by  the 
government  of  any  other  country. 

The  United  States  has  a  right,  like 
any  other  nation,  to  interpose  in  any 
controversy  by  which  their  own  in- 
terests are  affected,  and  they  are  the 
judge  whether  those  interests  are  touched 
and  in  what  measure  they  should  be 
sustained.  But  their  rights  are  in  no 
way  strengthened  or  extended  by  the 


fact  that  the  controversy  affects  some  ter- 
ritory which  is  called  American.  Mr. 
Olney  quotes  the  case  of  the  recent  Chil- 
ian war,  in  which  the  United  States  de- 
clined to  join  with  France  and  England 
in  an  eiTort  to  bring  hostilities  to  a  close, 
on  account  of  the  Monroe  doctrine.  The 
United  States  were  entirely  in  their  right 
in  declining  to  join  in  an  attempt  at  pa- 
cification if  they  thought  fit,  but  Mr. 
Oluey's  principle  that  "American  ques- 
tions are  for  American  decision,"  even 
if  it  received  any  countenance  from  the 
language  of  President  Monroe  (which  it 
does  not),  cannot  be  sustained  by  any 
reasoning  drawn  from  the  law  of  na- 
tions. 

UNITED   STATES   NOT  CONCERNED. 

The  government  of  the  United  States 
is  not  entitled  to  affirm  as  a  universal 
proposition,  with  reference  to  a  number 
of  independent  states  for  whose  con- 
duct it  assumes  no  responsibility,  that 
its  interests  are  necessarily  concerned  in 
whatever  may  befall  those  states  simply 
because  they  are  situated  in  the  western 
hemisphere.  It  may  well  be  that  the  inter- 
ests of  the  United  States  are  affected  by 
something  that  happens  to  Chili  or  Peru, 
and  that  the  circumstances  may  give 
them  the  right  of  interference;  but  such 
a  contingency  may  equally  happen  in  the 
case  of  China  or  Japan,  and  the  right  of 
interference  is  not  more  extensive  or 
more  assured  in  the  one  case  than  in  the 
other. 

Though  the  language  of  President  Mon- 
roe is  directed  to  the  attainment  of  ob- 
jects which  most  Englishmen  would 
agree  to  be  salutary,  it  is  impossible  to 
admit  that  they  have  been  inscribed  by 
any  adequate  authority  in  the  code  of 
international  law,  and  the  danger  which 
such  admission  would  involve  is  suffi- 
ciently exhibited  both  by  the  strange 
development  which  the  doctrine  has  re- 
ceived at  Mr.  Olney 's  hands  and  the  ar- 
guments by  which  it  is  supported  in  the 
dispatch  under  reply.  In  defense  of  it 
he  says:  "That  distance  and  3,000  miles 
of  intervening  ocean  make  any  perman- 
ent political  union  between  a  European 
and  an  American  state  unnatural  and 
inexpedient  will  hardly  be  denied.  But 
physical  and  geographical  considerations 
are  the  least  of  the  objections  to  such  a 
union.  Europe  has  a  set  of  primary  in- 
terests which  are  peculiar  to  herself; 
America  is  not  interested  in  them,  and 
ought  not  to  be  vexed  or  complicated 
with  them."  And  again:  "Thus  far  in 
our  history  we  have  been  spared  the  bur- 


Tllti   CORRESPONDENCE. 


dens  and  evils  of  immense  standing 
armies  and  all  the  other  accessories  of 
huge  warlike  establishments,  and  the 
exemption  has  highly  contributed  to  our 
national  greatness  and  wealth,  as  well 
as  lo  the  happiness  of  every  citizen.  But 
with  the  powers  tf  Kurope  permanently 
encamped  on  American  soil  the  ideal  con- 
ditions we  have  thus  far  enjoyed  cannot 
he  expected  to  continue." 

UNION   IS   EXPEDIENT. 

The  necessary  meaning  of  these  words 
is  that  the  union  between  Great  Britain 
,md  Canada,  between  Great  Britain  and 
.Jamaica  and  Trinidad,  between  Great 
Britain  and  British  Honduras  or  British 
Guiana,  is  "inexpedient  and  unnatural." 
President  Monroe  disclaims  any  such 
inference  from  his  doctrine,  but  in  this 
as  in  other  respects  Mr.  Olney  develops 
it.  He  lays  down  that  the  inexpedient 
and  unnatural  character  of  the  union 
between  a  European  and  an  American 
state  is  so  obvious  that  it  "will  hardly 
be  denied." 

Her  majesty's  government  are  pre- 
pared emphatically  to  deny  it  on  behalf 
of  both  the  British  and  American  peo- 
ple who  are  subject  to  the  crown.  They 
maintain  that  the  union  between  Great 
Britain  and  her  territories  in  the  west- 
ern hemisphere  is  both  natural  and  ex- 
pedient. They  fully  concur  with  the 
view  which  President  Monroe  appar- 
ently entertained,  that  any  disturbance 
of  the  existing  territorial  distribution 
in  that  hemisphere  by  any  fresh  acqui- 


sitions on  the  part  of  any  European 
state  would  be  a  highly  inexpedient 
change.  Hut  they  are  not  prepared  to 
admit  that  the  recognition  of  that  expe- 
diency is  clothed  with  the  ^auction  which 
belongs  to  a  doctrine  of  international 
law.  They  are  not  prepared  to  admit 
that  the  interests  of  the  United  States 
are  necessarily  concerned  in  every  fron- 
tier dispute  which  may  arise  between 
any  two  of  the  states  who  possess  do- 
minion in  the  western  hemisphere,  and 
still  less  can  they  accept  the  doctrine 
that  the  United  States  are  entitled  to 
claim  that  the  process  of  arbitration 
shall  be  applied  to  any  demand  for  the 
surrender  of  territory  which  one  of 
those  states  may  make  against  another. 

I  have  commented  in  the  above  re- 
marks only  upon  the  general  aspect  of 
Mr.  Olney 's  doctrine,  apart  from  the 
sp"rial  considerations  which  attach  to 
the  controversy  between  the  United 
Kingdom  and  Venezuela  in  its  present 
phase.  This  controversy  has  undoubtedly 
been  made  more  difficult  by  the  incon- 
siderate action  of  the  Venezuelan  gov- 
ernment in  breaking  off  relations  with 
her  majesty's  government,  and  its  settle- 
ment has  been  correspondingly  delayed; 
but  her  majesty's  government  have  not 
surrendered  the  hope  that  it  will  be  ad- 
justed by  a  reasonable  arrangement  at 
an  early  date. 

I  request  that  you  will  read  the  sub- 
ject of  the  above  dispatch  to  Mr.  Olney 
and  leave  him  a  copy  if  he  desires  it. 
SALISBURY. 


SALISBURY'S  SECOND  LETTER. 


Says  Olney's  Narration  of  What  Passed  is 
Based  on  Hx  Parte  Statements. 


"Foreign  Office,  Nov.  26,  1895. 
Sir:  In  my  preceding  dispatch  of 
to-day's  date  I  have  replied  only  to  the 
latter  portion  of  Mr.  Olney's  despatch  of 
.July  20  last,  which  treats  of  the  applica- 
tion of  the  Monroe  doctrine  to  the  ques- 
tion of  the  boundary  dispute  between 
Venezuela  and  the  colony  of  British 
Guiana.  But  it  seems  desirable,  in  order 
to  remove  some  evident  misapprehen- 
sions as  to  the  main  features  of  the  ques- 
tion.  that  the  statement  of  it  contained 


in  the  earlier  portion  of  Mr.  Olney's  des- 
patch should  not  be  left  without  reply. 
Such  a  course  will  be  the  more  conveni- 
ent, because,  in  consequence  of  the  sus- 
pension of  diplomatic  relations,  I  shall 
not  have  the  opportunity  of  setting  right 
misconceptions  of  this  kind  in  the  ordin- 
ary way  in  a  despatch  addressed  to  the 
Venezuelan  government  itself. 

Her  majesty's  government  while  it 
has  never  avoided  or  declined  argument 
on  the  subject  with  the  government  of 


THE   CORRESPONDENCE. 


Venezuela,  has  always  held  that  the 
question  was  one  which  had  no  direct 
bearing  on  the  material  interests  of  any 
other  country,  and  has  consequently  re- 
frained hitherto  from  presenting  any  de- 
tailed statement  of  its  case  either  tovthe 
1'nlted  States  or  to  other  foreign  gov- 
ernments. It  is  perhaps  a  natural  con- 
sequence of  this  circumstance  that  Mr. 
Olney's  narration  of  what  has  passed 
bears  the  impress  of  being  mainly,  if 
not  entirely,  founded  on  ex  parte  state- 
ments emanating  from  Venezuela,  and 
gives,  in  the  opinion  of  her  majesty's 
government,  an  erroneous  view  of  many 
material  facts. 

Mr.  Olney  commences  his  observa- 
tions by  remarking  that  'the  dispute  is 
of  ancient  date,  and  began  at  least  as 
early  as  the  time  when  Great  Britain  ac- 
quired by  the  treaty  with  the  Nether- 
lauds  in  1814  the  establishments  of 
Deuierara,  Essequibo  and  Berbice.  From 
that  time  to  the  present  the  dividing 
line  between  these  establishments,  now 
called  British  Guiana  and  Venezuela, 
has  never  ceased  to  be  a  subject  of  con- 
tention.' 

OLNEY   WRONG   IN    FACTS. 

This  statement  is  founded  on  miscon- 
ception. The  dispute  on  the  subject  of 
the  frontier  did  not,  in  fact,  commence 
till  after  the  year  1840.  The  title  of 
Great  Britain  to  the  territory  in  ques-  j 
tion  is  derived,  in  the  first  place,  from 
conquest  and  military  occupation  of 
the  Dutch  settlements  in  1796.  Both  on 
this  occasion  and  at  the  time  of  a  pre- 
vious occupation  of  these  settlements 
in  1781  the  British  authorities  marked 
the  western  boundary  of  their  posses- 
sions as  beginning  some  distance  up 
the  Orinoco  beyond  Point  Barima,  in 
accordance  with  the  limits  claimed  and 
actually  held  by  the  Dutch,  and  this 
has  always  since  remained  the  frontier 
claimed  by  Great  Britain. 

The  definite  cession  of  the  Dutch 
settlements  to  England  was,  as  Mr.  Ol- 
ney states',  placed  on  record  by  the  treaty 
of  1814,  and  although  the  Spanish  gov- 
ernment were  parties  to  the  negotiations 
which  led  to  that  treaty,  they  did  not  at 
any  stage  of  them  raise  objection  to  the 
frontiers  claimed  by  Great  Britain, 
though  these  were  perfectly  well  known 
to  them.  At  that  time  the  government  of 
Venezuela  had  not  been  recognized  even 
by  the  United  States,  though  the  prov- 
ince was  already  •  in  revolt  against  the 
Spanish  "government,  and  had  declared 
its  independence.  No  question  of  fron- 


tier was  raised  with  Great  Britain  either 
by  it  or  by  the  government  of  the  United 
States  of  Colombia,  in  which  it  became 
merged  in  1810.  That  government,  in- 
deed, on  repeated  occasions,  acknowl- 
edged its  indebtedness  to  Great  Britain 
for  her  friendly  attitude.  When  in  183< ) 
the  republic  of  Venezuela  assumed  a 
separate  existence  its  government  was 
equally  warm  in  its  expressions  of 
gratitude  and  friendship,  and  there  was 
not  at  the  time  any  indication  of  an  in- 
tention to  raise  such  claims  as  have 
been  urged  by  it  during  the  latter  por- 
tion of  this  century. 

A'ENEZUELA'S  DECLARATIONS 
INVALID. 

It  is  true,  as  stated  by  Mr.  Oluey, 
that  iii  the  Venezuelan  constitution  of 
18:50,  article  5  lays  down  that  'the  terri- 
tory of  Venezuela  comprises  all  that 
which  previously  to  the  political  changes 
of  1810  was  denominated  the  Captaincy- 
General  of  Venezuela.'  Similar  declar- 
ations had  been  made  in  the  funda- 
mental laws  promulgated  in  1819  and 
1821. 

I  need  not  point  out  that  a  declara- 
tion of  this  kind  made  by  a  newly  self- 
constituted  state  can  have  no  valid  force 
as  against  international  arrangements 
previously  concluded  by  the  nation  from 
which  it  had  separated  itself. 

But  the  present  difficulty  would  never 
have  arisen  if  the  government  of  Vene- 
zuela had  been  content  to  claim  only 
those  territories  which  could  be  proved 
or  even  reasonably  asserted  to  have  been 
practically  in  the  possession  and  under 
the  effective  jurisdiction  of  the  Cap- 
taincy-General of  Venezuela. 

There  is  no  authoritative  statement  by  the 
Spanish  government  of  those  territories,  for 
a  decree  which  the  Venezuelan  government 
alleges  to  have  been  issued  by  the  king  of 
Spain  in  1768,  describing-  the  province  Gui- 
ana as  bordered  on  the  south  by  the  Ama- 
zon and  on  the  east  by  the  Atlantic,  cer- 
tainly cannot  be  regarded  as  such.  It  abso- 
lutely ignores  the  Dutch  settlements,  which 
not  only  existed  in  fact,  but  had  been  form- 
ally recognized  by  the  treaty  of  Munster  of 
1648,  and  it  would,  if  now  considered  valid, 
transfer  to  Venezuela  the  whole  of  the  Brit- 
ish, Dutch  and  French  Guianas,  and  an 
enormous  tract  of  territory  belonging  to 
Brazil. 

But  of  the  territory  claimed  and  actually 
occupied  by  the  Dutch,  which  were  those 
acquired  from  them  by  Great  Britain,  there 
exist  the  most  authentic  declarations.  In 
1759,  and  again  in  1769,  the  states  general  of 
Holland  addressed  formal  remonstrances  to 
the  court  of  Madrid  against  the  incursions 
of  the  Spaniards  into  their  posts  and  set- 
tlements in  the  basin  of  the  Cuyuni.  In 
those  remonstrances  they  distinctly  claimed 
all  the  branches  of  the  Essequibo  river,  and 


THE   CORRESPONDENCE. 


especially  the  Cuyuni  river,  as  lying  within 
Dutch  territory.  They  demanded  immediate 
reparation  for  the  proceedings  of  Spaniards 
and  reinstatement  of  the  posts  said  to  have 
been  injured  by  them,  and  suggested  that  a 
proper  delineation  between  the  colony  of 
Essequibo  and  the  Rio  Orinoco  should  be 
laid  down  by  authority. 

To  this  claim  the  Spanish  government 
never  attempted  to  make  any  reply.  But  it 
is  evident  from  the  archives  which  are  pre- 
served in  Spain  and  to  which,  by  the  court- 
esy of  the  Spanish  government,  reference 
has  been  made,  that  the  council  of  state  did 
not  consider  that  they  had  the  means  of  re- 
butting it,  and  that  neither  they  nor  the 
governor  of  Cumana  were  prepared  seri- 
ously to  maintain  the  claims  which  were 
suggested  in  reports  from  his  subordinate 
officer,  the  commandant  at  Guiana.  These 
reports  were  characterized  t>y  the  Spanish 
•ministers  as  insufficient  and  unsatisfactory 
as  professing  to  show  the  province  of  Gui- 
ana under  too  favorable  a  light,  and  finally 
by  the  council  of  state  as  appearing  from 
other  information  to  be  very  improbable. 

They  form,  however,  with  a  map 
which  accompanied  them,  the  evidence 
on  which  the  Venezuelan  government 
appears  most  to  rely,  though  it  may  be 
observed  among  other  documents  which 
have  from  time  to  time  been  produced 
or  referred  to  by  them  in  the  course  of 
the  discussions  is  a  bull  of  Pope  Alex- 
ander VI.  in  1493,  which,  if  it  is  to  be 
considered  as  having  any  present  valid- 
ity, would  take  from  the  government 
of  the  United  States  all  titles  to  juris- 
diction on  the  continent  of  North  Amer- 
ica. The  fundamental  principle  under- 
lying the  argument  is,  in  fact,  that  in- 
asmuch as  Spain  was  originally  entitled 
of  right  to  the  whole  of  the  American 
continent,  any  territory  on  that  contin- 
ent which  she  cannot  be  shown  to  have 
acknowledged  in  positive  and  specific 
terms  to  have  passed  to  another  power 
can  only  Lave  been  acquired  by  wrong- 
ful usurpation,  and  if  situated  to  the 
north  of  the  Amazon  and  west  of  the  At- 
lantic, must  necessarily  belong  to  Vene- 
/Aiela  as  her  self  constituted  inheritor  in 
those  regions. 

ASKS  OLNEY  WHAT  HE  WOULD  DO. 

It  may  reasonably  be  asked  whether 
Mr.  Olney  would  consent  to  refer  to  the 
arbitration  of  another  power  preten- 
sions received  by  the  government  of 
Mexico  on  such  a  foundation  to  large 
tracts  of  territory  which  had  long  been 
comprised  in  the  federation. 

The  circumstances  connected  with  the 
marking  of  what  is  called  the  'Schom- 
burgk'  line  are  as  follows: 

In  1831  a  grant  was  made  by  the  Brit- 
ish government  for  the  exploration  of 
the  interior  of  the  British  colony,  and 
Mr.  (afterwards  Sir)  Schomburgk,  who 


was  employed  in  this  service,  on  his 
return  to  the  capital  of  the  colony,  in 
.Inly,  1839,  called  the  attention  of  the 
government  to  the  necessity  for  an  early 
demarcation  of  its  boundaries.  He  was 
in  consequence  appointed  in  November, 
1840,  special  commissioner  for  provision- 
ally surveying  and  delimiting  the  boun- 
daries of  British  Guiana,  and  notice  of 
the  appointment  was  given  to  the  gov- 
ernments concerned,  including  that  of 
Venezuela.  The  intention  of  her  majesty's 
government  at  that  time  was,  when  the 
work  of  the  commissioner  had  been  com- 
pleted, to  communicate  to  the  other  gov- 
ernments its  views  as  to  the  true  boun- 
dary of  the  British  colony,  and  then  to 
settle  any  details  to  which  those  gov- 
ernments might  take  objection. 

It  is  important  to  notice  that  Sir  II. 
Schomburgk  did  not  discover  or  invent 
any  new  boundaries.  He  took  particu- 
lar care  to  fortify  himself  with  the  his- 
tory of  the  case.  He  had,  further,  from 
actual  exploration  and  information  ob- 
tained from  the  Indians,  and  from  the 
evidence  of  local  remains,  as  at  Barima, 
and  local  traditions,  as  on  the  Cuyuni, 
fixed  the  limits  of  the  Dutch  posses- 
sions, and  the  zone  from  which  all  trace 
of  Spanish  influence  was  absent.  On 
such  data  he  bases  his  reports.  At  the 
very  outset  of  his  mission  he  surveyed 
Point  Barima,  where  the  remains  of  a 
Dutch  fort  still  existed,  and  placed  there 
and  at  the  mouth  of  Amacura  two  boun- 
dary posts.  At  the  urgent  entreaty  of  the 
Venezuelan  government  these  two  posts 
were  afterwords  removed,  as  stated  by 
Mr.  Olney,  but  this  concession  was  made 
on  the  distinct  understanding  that  Great 
Britain  did  not  thereby  in  any  way 
abandon  its  claim  to  that  position. 

In  submitting  the  maps  of  his  survey 
on  which  he  indicated  the  line  which  he 
would  propose  ttf  her  majesty's  govern- 
ment for  adoption,  Sir  R.  Schomburgk 
called  attention  to  the  fact  that  her  ma- 
jesty's government  might  justly  claim 
the  whole  basin  of  the  Cuquni  and  Yu- 
ruari,  on  the  ground  that  the  natural 
boundary  of  the  colony  included  any  ter- 
ritory through  which  flows  rivers  which 
fall  into  the  Essquibo.  "Upon  this  prin- 
ciple," he  wrote,  "the  boundary  line  would 
run  from  the  sources  of  the  Carumani 
towards  the  courses  of  the  Cuyuni 
proper,  and  thence  towards  its  far  more 
northern  tributaries,  the  rivers  Iruary 
(Yutauari)  and  Iruangkiruang  (Yuruan). 
and  thus  approach  the  ver^  heart  of 
Venezuelan  Guiana."  But  on  grounds  of 
complaisance  towards  Venezuela  he  pro- 


36 


THE    CORRESPONDENCE. 


posed  that  Great  Britain  should  consent 
to  surrender  its  claim  to  a  more  extended 
frontier  inland  in  return  for  the  formal 
recognition  of  her  right  to  Point  Barinia. 
It  was  on  this  principle  that  he  drew  the 
boundary  line  which  has  since  been  called 
by  his  name. 

THE  SCHOMBURGK  LINE. 

Undoubtedly,  therefore,  Mr.  Olney  is 
right  when  he  states  that  it  seems  im- 
possible to  treat  the  Schomburgk  line, 
being  the  boundary  claimed  by  Great 
Britain,  as  matter  of  right  or  as  any- 
thing but  a  line  originating  in  consider- 
ations of  convenience  and  expediency. 
The  Schomburgk  line  was  in  fact  a  great 
reduction  of  the  boundary  claimed  by 
Great  Britain  as  matter  of  right,  and  its 
proposal  originated  in  a  desire  to  come 
to  a  speedy  and  friendly  arrangement 
with  a  weaker  powder  with  whom  Great 
Britain  was  at  the  time,  and  desired  to 
remain,  in  cordial  relations. 

The  following  are  the  main  facts  of 
the  discussions  that  ensued  with  the 
Venezuela  government.  While  Mr. 
Schomburgk  was  engaged  on  his  survey 
the  Venezuelan  minister  in  London  had 
urged  her  majesty's  government  to  enter 
into  a  treaty  of  limits,  but  received  the 
answer  that  if  it  should  be  necessary  to 
enter  into  such  a  treaty,  a  survey  was  at 
any  rate  the  necessary  preliminary. 

As  soon  as  her  majesty's  government 
were  in  possession  of  Mr.  Schomburgk' s 
report,  the  Venezuelan  minister  wras  in- 
formed that  they  were  in  a  position  to 
commence  negotiations,  and  in  January, 
1844,  Mr.  Fortique  commenced  by  stat- 
ing the  claim  of  his  government.  This 
claim,  starting  from  such  obsolete 
grounds  as  the  original  discovery  by 
Spain  of  the  American  continent,  and 
mainly  supported  by  quotations  of  a 
more  or  less  vague  character  from  the 
writings  of  travelers  and  geography, 
but  adducing  no  substantial  evidence  of 
actual  conquest  or  occupation  of  the  ter- 
ritory claimed,  demanded  the  Essequibo 
itself  as  the  boundary  of  Venezuela. 

A  reply  was  returned  by  Lord  Aber- 
deen, then  secretary  of  state  for  foreign 
affairs,  pointing  out  that  it  would  be  im- 
possible to  arrive  at  any  agreement  if 
both  sides  brought  forward  pretensions 
of  so  extreme  a  character,  but  stating 
that  the  British  government  w7ould  not 
imitate  Mr.  Fortique  in  putting  forward 
a  claim  which  it  could  not  be  intended 
seriously  to  maintain.  Lord  Aberdeen 
then  proceeded  to  announce  the  conces- 
sions which,  out  of  friendly  regard  to 


Venezuela,  her  majesty's  government 
were  prepared  to  make,  and  proposed  a 
line  starting  from  the  mouth  of  the  Alor- 
oco  to  the  junction  of  the  river  Karama 
with  the  Waini,  thence  up  the  Barama 
to  the  point  at  which  that  stream  ap- 
proached nearest  to  the  Acarabisi,  and 
thence  following  Sir  R.  Schomburgk's 
line  from  the  source  of  the  Acarabisi 
onward. 

WHAT   ENGLAND   OFFERED. 

A  condition  was  attached  to  the  prof- 
fered cession,  viz.,  that  the  Venezuelan 
government  should  enter  into  an  engage- 
ment that  no  portion  of  the  territory  pro- 
posed to  be  ceded  should  be  alienated  at» 
any  time  to  a  foreign  power  and  that  the 
Indian  tribes  residing  in  it  should  be 
protected  from  oppression.  No  answer  to 
the  note  was  ever  received  from  i  In- 
Venezuelan  government,  and  in  1850  her 
majesty's  government  informed  her 
majesty's  charge  d'affairs  at  Caracas 
that  as  the  proposal  had  remained  for 
more  than  six  years  unaccepted  it  must 
be  considered  as  having  lapsed,  and  au- 
thorized him  to  make  a  communication 
to  the  Venezuelan  government  to  that 
effect. 

A  report  having  at  the  time  become 
current  in  Venezuela  that  Great  Britain 
intended  to  seize  Venezuelan  Guiana, 
the  British  government  distinctly  dis- 
claimed such  an  intention,  but  inasmuch 
as  the  government  of  Venezuela  sub- 
sequently permitted  projects  to  be  set 
on  foot  for  the  occupation  of  Point 
Barima  and  certain  other  positions  in  dis- 
pute, the  British  charge  d'affairs  was 
instructed  in  June,  1850,  to  call  the  seri- 
ous attention  of  the  president  and  gov- 
ernment of  Venezuela  to  the  question 
and  to  declare  to  them,  "that  whilst  on 
the  one  hand,  Great  Britain  had  no  in- 
tention to  occupy  or  encroach  on  the  dis- 
puted territory,  she  would  not  on  the 
other  hand  view  with  indifference  ag- 
gressions on  that  territory  by  Vene- 
zuela." 

The  Venezuelan  government  replied 
in  December  of  the  same  year  that 
Venezuela  had  no  intention  of  occupy- 
ing or  encroaching  upon  any  part  of  the 
territory  the  dominion  ef  which  wras  in 
divspute,  and  that  orders  would  be  issued 
to  the  authorities  in  Guiana  to  abstain 
from  taking  any  steps  contrary  to  this 
engagement.  This  constitutes  what  has 
been  termed  the  agreement  of  1850,  to 
which  the  government  of  Venezuela  have 
frequently  appealed,  but  which  the 


THE   CORRESPONDENCE. 


:n 


Venezuelans  have  repeatedly  violated  in 
succeeding  years.  Their  first  acts  of  this 
nature  consisted  iii  the  assumption  of 
positions  to  the  east  of  their  previous 
settlements  and  the  founding  in  1858  of 
the  town  of  Nueva  Providencia  on  the 
right  bank  of  the  Yuruiari,  all  previous 
settlements  being  on  the  left  bank.  The 
British  government,  however,  consider- 
ing that  these  settlements  were  so  near 
positions  which  they  had  not  wished  to 
claim,  considering  also  the  difficulty  of 
controlling  the  bounds  of  mining  popula- 
tions, overlooked  this  breach  of  the 
agreement. 

The  governor  of  the  colony  was,  in  1857, 
sent  to  Caracas  to  negotiate  for  a  settle- 
ment of  the  boundary,  but  he  found  the 
Venezuelan  state  in  so  disturbed  a  condi- 
tion that  it  was  impossible  to  commence 
negotiations,  and  eventually  he  came  away 
without  having  effected  anything.  For  the 
next  nineteen  years,  as  stated  by  Mr.  Olney, 
the  civil  commotions  in  Venezuela  prevented 
any  resumption  of  negotiations.  In  1876  it 
was  reported  that  the  Venezuelan  govern- 
ment had  for  the  second  time  broken  the 
agreement  of  1850  by  granting  licenses  to 
trade  and  cut  wood  in  Barima  and  east- 
ward. 

Later  in  the  same  year  that  government 
once  more  made  an  overture  for  the  settle- 
ment of  the  boundary.  Various  delays  inter- 
posed before  negotiations  actually  com- 
menced, and  it  was  not  till  1879  that  Senor 
Rojaz  began  them  with  a  renewal  of  the 
claim  to  the  Essequibo  as  the  eastern  boun- 
dary of  Venezuelan  Guiana.  At  the  same 
time  he  stated  that  his  government  wished 
to  obtain  by  means  of  a  treaty  a  definitive 
settlement  of  the  question  and  was  dis- 
posed to  proceed  to  the  demarcation  of  the 
divisional  line  between  the  two  Guianas  in  a 
spirit  of  conciliation  and  true  friendship  to- 
wards her  majesty's  government. 

Tn  reply  to  this  communication  a  note  was 
addressed  to  Senor  Rojaz  on  January  in, 
1880,  reminding  him  that  the  boundary  which 
her  majesty's  government  claimed,  as  a 
matter  of  strict  right  on  grounds  of  con- 
quest and  concessions  by  treaty,  commenced 
at  a  point  at  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco, 
westward  of  Point  Barima,  that  it  pro- 
ceeded thence  in  a  southerly  direction  to 
the  Tmataca  mountains,  the  line  of  which 
it  followed  to  the  northwest,  passing  from 
thence  by  the  highland  of  Santa  Maria,  just 
south  of  the  town  of  Upata,  until  it  struck 
a  range  of  hills  on  the  eastern  bank  of  the 
Caroni  river,  followed  thence  southward 
until  it  struck  the  great  backbone  of  the 
Guiana  district,  the  Barima  mountains  of 
British  Guiana  and  thence  southward  to  the 
Pacarai  mountains. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  claim  which  had 
been  put  forward  on  behalf  of  Venezuela  by 
General  Guzman  Blanco  in  his  message  to 
the  national  congress  of  February  20,  1877, 
would  involve  the  surrender  of  a  province 
now  inhabited  by  40,000  British  subjects,  and 
which  had  been  in  the  uninterrupted  pos- 
session of  Holland  and  of  Great  Britain  suc- 
cessively for  two  centuries.  The  difference 
between  these  two  claims  being  so  great, 
it  was  pointed  out  to  Senor  Rojaz  that,  in 
order  to  arrive  at  a  satisfactory  arrange- 
ment, each  party  must  be  prepared  to  make 
very  considerable  concessions  to  thp  other, 
and  he  was  assured  that,  although  the  claim 


of  Venezuela  to  the  Essequibo  river  boun- 
dary could  not,  under  any  circumstances,  in- 
entertained,  yet  that  her  majesty's  govern- 
ment were  anxious  to  meet  the  Venezuelan 
government  in  the  spirit  of  conciliation, 
and  would  be  willing,  in  the  event  of  a  re- 
newal of  negotiations  for  the  general  settle- 
ment of  boundaries,  to  waive  a  portion  of 
what  they  considered  to  be  their  sti-i«-i 
rights,  if  Venezuela  were  really  disposed  t<> 
make  corresponding  concessions  on  her  part. 

VENEZUELA  WAS  OBDURATE. 

The  Venezuelan  minister  replied  in 
February,  1881,  by  proposing  a  line 
which  commenced  on  the  coast  a  mile 
to  the  north  of  the  Moroco  river,  and  fol- 
lowed by  certain  parallels  and  meridians 
inland,  bearing  a  general  resemblance  to 
the  proposal  made  by  Lord  Aberdeen  in 
1844. 

Senor  Rojaz's  proposal  was  referred 
to  the  lieutenant  governor  and  attorney 
general  of  British  Guiana,  who  were  then 
in  England,  and  they  presented  an  elab- 
orate report,  showing  that  in  the  thirty- 
five  years  which  elapsed  since  Lord 
Aberdeen's  proposed  concession,  natives 
and  others  had  settled  in  the  territory 
under  the  belief  that  they  would  enjoy 
the  benefits  of  English  rule,  and  that  it 
was  impossible  to  assent  to  any  such  con- 
cessions, as  Senor  Rojaz's  line  would  in- 
volve. They,  however,  proposed  an  alter- 
native line,  which  involved  considerable 
reductions  of  that  laid  down  by  Sir  1 1. 
Schomburgk.  This  boundary  was  pro- 
posed to  the  Venezuelan  government  by 
Lord  Granville  in  September,  1881.  bin 
no  answer  was  ever  returned  by  thai 
government  to  the  proposal. 

While,  however,  the-  Venezuelan  min- 
ister constantly  stated  that  the  matter 
was  under  active  consideration,  it  was 
found  that  in  the  same  year  a  conces- 
sion had  been  given  by  his  government 
to  General  Pulgar,  which  included  a 
large  portion  of  the  territory  in  dispute. 
This  was  the  third  breach  by  Vene- 
zuela of  the  agreement  of  1850.  Early  in 
1884  news  arrived  of  a  fourth  bread)  by 
Venezuela  of  the  agreement  ot  isr.n. 
through  two  different  grants  which  cov- 
ered the  whole  of  the  territory  in  dis- 
pute, and  as  this  was  followed  by  actual 
attempts  to  settle  on  the  disputed  terri- 
tory the  British  government  could  no 
longer  remain  inactive. 

WARNING*' GIVEN. 

Warning  was  therefore  given  i<>  the 
Venezuelan  government  and  to  the  «-(.u- 
cessionaries,  and  a  British  magistrate 
was  sent  into  the  threatened  district  to 
assert  the  British  rights.  Meanwhile  the 
negotiations  for  a  settlement  of  the  bouu- 


38 


THE   CORRESPONDENCE. 


dary  had  continued,  but  the  only  replies 
that  could  be  obtained  from  Senor  Guz- 
man Blanco,  the  Venezuelan  minister, 
were  proposals  for  arbitration  in  differ- 
ent forms,  all  of  which  her  majesty's 
government  were  compelled  to  decline  as 
involving  a  submission  to  the  arbitra- 
tion of  the  claim  advanced  by  Venezuela 
in  1844  to  all  territory  up  to  the  left 
bank  of  the  Essequibo. 
British  subjects  made  a  decision  of  some 
kind  absolutely  necessary,  and  as  the 

As  the  progress  of  settlement  by 
Venezuelan  government  refused  to  come 
to  any  reasonable  arrangement,  her  maj- 
esty's government  decided  not  to  repeat 
the  offer  of  concessions  which  had  not 
been  reciprocated,  but  to  assert  her  un- 
doubted right  to  the  territory  within  the 
Schomburgk  line,  while  still  consenting 
to  hold  open  for  further  negotiation, 
and  even  for  arbitration,  the  unsettled 
lands  between  that  line  and  what  they 
considered  to  be  the  rightful  boundary 
as  stated  in  the  note  to  Senor  Rojaz  of 
January  10,  1880. 

The  execution  of  this  design  was  de- 
ferred for  a  time,  owing  to  the  return  of 
Seuor  Guzman  Blanco  to  London,  and  the 
desire  of  Lord  Rosebery,  then  secretary 
of  state  for  foreign  affairs,  to  settle  all 
pending  questions  between  the  two  gov- 
ernments. 

Mr.  Olney  is  mistaken  in  supposing 
that  in  1886  a  treaty  was  practically 
agreed  upon  containing  a  general  arbi- 
tration clause  under  which  the  parties 
might  have  submitted  the  boundary  dis- 
pute to  the  decision  of  a  third  power, 
or  of  several  powers  in  amity  with  both. 
It  is  true  that  General  Guzman  Blanco 
proposed  that  the  commercial  treaty 
between  the  two  countries  should  con- 
tain a  clause  of  this  nature,  but  it  had 
reference  to  future  disputes  only.  Her 
majesty's  government  have  always  in- 
sisted on  a  separate  decision  of  the  fron- 
tier  question,  and  have  considered  its 
settlement  to  be  a  necessary  preliminary 
to  other  arrangements. 

LORD  ROSEBERY'S  PROPOSAL. 

Lord  Roseberry's  proposal,  made  in 
.July,  1886,  was  that  the  two  governments 
should  agree  to  consider  the  territory 
lying  between  the  boundary  lines  re- 
spectively proposed  in  the  eighth  para- 
graph of  Senor  Rojaz's  note  of  February 
21,  1881,  and  in  Lord  Granville's  note 
of  September  15,  1881,  as  the  territory  in 
dispute  between  the  two  countries,  and 
that  a  boundary  line  within  the  limits  of 
this  territory  should  be  traced  either  by 
an  arbitrator  or  by  a  joint  commission  on 


the  basis  of  an  equal  division  of  this  ter- 
ritory, due  regard  being  had  to  natural 
boundaries.  Senor  Guzman  Blanco  re- 
plied, declining  the  proposal,  and  repeat- 
ing that  arbitration  on  the  whole  claim 
of  Venezuela  was  the  only  method  of 
solution  which  he  would  suggest. 

This  pretension  is  hardly  less  exorbitant 
than  would  be  a  refusal  by  Great  Britain 
to  agree  to  an  arbitration  on  the  boundary 
of  British  Columbia  and  Alaska,  unless  the 
United  States  would  consent  to  bring  into 
question  one-half  of  the  whole  area  of  the 
latter  territory.  He  shortly  afterwards  left 
Kngland  and  as  there  seemed  no  hope  of 
arriving  at  an  agreement  by  further  discus- 
sions, the  Schomburgk  line  was  proclaimed 
as  the  irreducible  boundary  of  the  colony  in 
October,  1886. 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  in  tak- 
ing this  step  her  majesty's  government 
did  not  assert  anything  approaching 
their  extreme  claim,  but  confined  them- 
selves within  the  limits  of  what  had  as 
early  as  1840  been  suggested  as  a  con- 
cession out  of  friendly  regard  and  com- 
pliance. When  Senor  Guzman  Blanco, 
having  returned  to  Venezuela,  announced 
his  intention  of  erecting  a  light  house 
at  Point  Barima.  the  British  government 
expressed  their  readiness  to  permit  this 
if  he  would  enter  into  a  formal  written 
agreement  that  its  erection  would  not 
be  held  to  prejudice  their  claim  to  the 
site.  In  the  meanwhile  the  Venezuelan 
government  had  sent  commissioners  into 
the  territory  to  the  east  of  the  Schom- 
burgk line,  and  upon  their  return  two 
notes  were  addressed  to  the  British  min- 
ister at  Caracas,  dated  respectively  the 
26th  and  30th  of  January,  1887,  demand- 
ing the  evacuation  of  the  whole  territory 
held  by  Great  Britain  from  the  mouth  of 
the  Orinoco  to  the  Pomeroon  river,  and 
adding  that  should  this  not  be  done  by 
February  20,  and  should  the  evacuation 
not  be  accompanied  by  the  acceptance 
of  arbitration  as  the  means  of  deciding 
the  pending  frontier  question,  diplomatic 
relations  would  be  broken  off. 

THE   DIPLOMATIC  RUPTURE. 

In  pursuance  of  this  decision  the  Brit- 
ish representative  at  Caracas  received 
his  passports  and  relations  were  declared 
by  the  Venezuelan  government  to  be  sus- 
pended on  February  21.  1887. 

In  December  of  that  year,  as  a  mat- 
ter of  precaution  and  in  order  that  the 
claims  of  Great  Britain  beyond  the 
Schomburgk  line  might  not  be  consid- 
ered to  have  been  abandoned,  a  notice4 
was  issued  by  the  governor  of  British 
Guiana  formally  reserving  those  claims. 
No  steps  have,  however,  at  any  time  been 
taken  by  the  British  authorities  to  exer- 
cise jurisdiction  beyond  the  Schom- 


THE  CORRESPONDENCE. 


bnrgk  line,  nor  to  interfere  with  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Venezuelans  in  the  ter- 
ritory outside  of  it.  although,  pending 
a  settlement  of  the  dispute,  Great  Brit- 
ain cannot  recognize  these  proceedings  as 
valid,  or  as  conferring  any  legitimate 
title. 

The  question  has  remained  in  this  po- 
sition ever  since.  The  basis  on  which 
her  majesty's  government  were  prepared 
lo  negotiate  for  its  settlement  were 
dearly  indicated  to  the  Venezuelan  pleni- 
potentiaries who  were  successively  dis- 
patched to  London  in  1890,  1891,  and 
1893  to  negotiate  for  a  renewal  of  diplo- 
matic relations,  but  as  on  those  occas- 
ions the  only  solutions  which  the  Vene- 
zuelan government  professed  themselves 
ready  to  accept  would  still  have  involved 
the  submission  to  arbitration  of  the 
Venezuelan  claim  to  a  large  portion  of 
the  British  colony,  no  progress  has  yet 
been  made  towards  a  settlement. 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  preceding 
statement  that  the  government  of  Great 
Britain  have  from  the  first  held  the  same 
view  as  to  the  extent  of  the  territory 
which  they  are  entitled  to  claim  as  a 
matter  of  right.  It  comprised  the  coast 
line  up  fo  the  river  Amacure  and  the 
whole  basin  of  the  Essequibo  river  and 
its  tributaries.  A  portion  of  that  claim, 
however,  they  have  always  been  willing 
to  waive  altogether;  in  regard  to  another 
portion  they  have  been  and  continue  to 
be  perfectly  ready  to  submit  the  ques- 
tion of  their  title  to  arbitration. 

RIGHTS    NOT    OPEN    TO    QUESTION. 

As  regards  the  rest,  that  which  lies 
within  the  so-called  Schomburgk  line, 
they  do  not  consider  that  the  rights  of 
Great  Britain  are  open  to  question. 
Kven  within  that  line  they  have,  on 
various  occasions,  offered  to  Venezuela 
considerable  concessions  as  a  matter  of 
friendship  and  conciliation,  and  for  the 
purpose  of  securing  an  amicable  settle- 
ment of  the  dispute. 

If,  as  time  has  gone  on,  the  conces- 
sions thus  offered  diminished  in  extent 
and  have  now  been  withdrawn,  this  has 
been  the  necessary  consequence  of  the 
gradual  spread  over  the  country  of  Brit- 
ish settlements,  which  her  majesty's  gov- 
ernment cannot,  in  justice  to  the  inhabi- 
tants, offer  to  surrender  to  foreign  rule; 
and  the  justice  of  such  withdrawal  is 
amply  borne  out  by  the  researches  in 
the  national  archives  of  Holland  and 
Spain,  which  have  furnished  further  and 
more  convincing  evidence  in  support  of 
the  British  claims. 

The  discrepancies  in  the  frontiers  as- 
signed to  the  British  colony  in  various 


maps  published  in  England  and  errone- 
ously assumed  to  lie  founded  on  othVial 
information  are  easily  accounted  for  by 
the  circumstances  which  I  have  men- 
tioned. Her  majesty's  government  can- 
not, of  course,  be  responsible  for  such 
publications  made  without  its  authority, 
ity. 

Although  the  negotiations  in  l,X!»o. 
1891  and  1893  did  not  lead  to  any  result, 
her  majesty's  government  have  not  aban- 
doned the  hope  that  they  may  be  re- 
sumed with  better  success,  and  that 
when  the  internal  politics  of  Venezuela 
are  settled  on  a  more  durable  basis  than 
has  lately  appeared  to  be  the  case,  her 
government  may  be  enabled  to  adopt  a 
more  moderate  and  conciliatory  course  in 
rouard  to  this  question  than  that  of  their 
predecessors. 

Her  majesty's  government  are  sin- 
cerely desirous  of  being  on  friendly  re- 
lations with  Venezuela,  and  certainly 
have  no  design  to  seize  territory  that 
forcibly  belongs  to  her,  or  forcibly  to  ex- 
tend sovereignty  over  any  portion  of  her 
population. 

THE  SUMMARY. 

They  have,  on  the  contrary,  repeated  1\ 
expressed  their  readiness  to  submit,  to 
arbitration  the  conflicting  claims  of 
Great  Britain  and  Venezuela  to  large 
tracts  of  territory  which  from  their  auri- 
ferous nature  are  known  to  be  of  al- 
most untold  value.  But  they  cannot  con- 
sent to  entertain,  or  to  submit  to  the 
arbitration  of  another  power  or  of  for- 
eign jurists,  however  eminent,  claims 
based  on  the  extravagant  pretensions  of 
Spanish  officials  in  the  last  century,  and 
involving  the  transfer  of  large  numbers 
of  British  subjects,  who  have  for  many 
years  enjoyed  the  settled  rule  of  a  Brit- 
ish colony,  to  a  nation  of  different  race 
and  language,  whose  political  system  is 
subject  to  freqaent  disturbance,  and 
whose  institutions,  as  yet,  too  often 
afford  very  inadequate  protection  to  life 
and  property. 

No  issue  of  this  description  has  ever 
been  involved  in  the  questions  which 
Great  Britain  and  the  United  States 
have  consented  to  submit  to  arbitration. 
and  her  majesty's  government  are  con- 
vinced that  in  similar  circumstances  the 
government  of  the  United  States  would 
be  equally  tirm  in  declining  to  entertain 
proposals  of  such  a  nature. 

Your  excellency  is  authorized  n>  state 
the  substance  of  this  dispatch  to  Mr. 
Olney  and  to  leave  him  a  copy  of  it  if 
he  should  desire  it.  I  am,  etc., 

"SALISBURY." 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 
LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


57NIS 


i  rt 

,p  cs* 

**-           ca 

^    ** 

: 

r"   ;'e1V    ' 

«^c'0^° 

ttK(o!»196\ 

^nMu^*lt)       H 

i*y  \» 

1 

i                '-->-U  p. 
1          «*U^f 

•T 

ftT 

j  yifiYl  8  1973^ 

LD  21A-50m-8,'57 
(C8481slO)476B 

'73  -7  PM  1  0 

General  Library 
University  of  California 
Berkeley 

YP    I R4 I 

I  L/       I  OH  I 


